ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION G4S Limited v. Naijawebhost NWH Case No. D2024-0279 1. The Parties The Complainant is G4S Limited, United Kingdom, represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom. The Respondent is Naijawebhost NWH, Nigeria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 23, 2024. On January 23, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 24, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 25, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 14, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 15, 2024. The Center appointed John Swinson as the sole panelist in this matter on February 21, 2024. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a London-based global security company which provides security and facility services in around 90 countries across the world. Initially founded in 1901, the Complainant has been operating under its current name, G4S (or Group 4 Securicor) since 2004, when Group 4 Falck and Securicor merged. The Complainant owns several trademark registrations for G4S in various jurisdictions, including United States Registration Number 3378800 with a date of registration of February 5, 2008. The Complainant’s main website is located at . This domain name was registered in 1999. The disputed domain name was registered on August 6, 2023. The Respondent did not respond, so little information is known about the Respondent. At one time, the disputed domain name resolved to a website that used the Complainant’s logo and impersonated the Complainant. At this time, the MX records for the disputed domain name were activated. At the present time, the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. The Complainant wrote a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent on September 26, 2023, but no response was received to this letter. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a website to imitate the Complainant’s offerings and brandish its G4S trademark was to pass off as the Complainant and to confuse and mislead Internet users seeking or expecting to reach the Complainant’s G4S offerings, and that this use of the disputed domain name to host an imitation site is inherently bad faith behaviour. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent had the capability of using the disputed domain name to carry out fraudulent activity through email distribution. The presence of MX records has been found by panelists in previous disputes to evidence bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied, namely: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
page 3 The onus of proving these elements is on the Complainant. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The G4S mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms (here, “security” and a dash) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (here, impersonation/passing off) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the Respondent used the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant.
page 4 Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (here, impersonation/passing off), constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. Additionally, the Complainant has provided evidence that the MX records for the disputed domain name were activated for email functionality. In the present case, this is circumstantial evidence that the disputed domain name could have been registered to conduct email scams. The fact that the disputed domain name is no longer being used to host an active website does not assist the Respondent. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant. /John Swinson/ John Swinson Sole Panelist Date: March 3, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy