ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Arrise Limited v. David Larson Case No. D2024-1988 1. The Parties The Complainant is Arrise Limited, Gibraltar, United Kingdom, represented by Wiley Rein LLP, United States of America (“United States”). The Respondent is David Larson, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name
is registered with GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Discount-Domain.com and Onamae.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 13, 2024. On May 14, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 15, 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 May 17, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 6, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 7, 2024. The Center appointed Teruo Kato as the sole panelist in this matter on June 12, 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 According to the Complainant, the Complainant is a company formed in the British Virgin Islands, United Kingdom and operating in Gibraltar, United Kingdom (“Gibraltar”) and through its related entities is registered with the Gibraltar Companies House on February 5, 2021 and services Pragmatic Play, a leading provider of mobile and desktop casino games for the online gaming industry. The Complainant holds three trademarks with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) identified as ARRISE which is a word mark (Registration Number 018926949), and ARRISE which are figurative marks (Registration Numbers 018926982 and 018927086), all of which were registered on January 20, 2024. The disputed domain name was registered on March 20, 2024. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. The Complainant has presented evidence that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for email exchanges to impersonate the Complainant and has contacted a customer of the Complainant, seeking bank transfer payment. According to the Complainant as well as the Registrar, the Respondent is registered as David Larson with an address in the United States. 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. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding Pursuant to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the panel to determine otherwise having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding. In the present case, the Registrar has confirmed that the language of the Registration Agreement is English. The Complaint has been submitted in English. In the circumstances, the Panel holds that the language of the present administrative proceeding be English. 6.2 Substantive Issues 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.
page 3 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 Panel finds the 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. In particular, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name has swapped the third letter “r” and forth letter “i” in the Complainant’s mark and considers that the present case is a typical example of the so-called “typosquatting” case, which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9. 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 (such as impersonation and other fraudulent attempt by the Respondent as observed in the present case) 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 Complainant contends with evidence, among others, that the Respondent has used the email function of the disputed domain name and has sent an email to one of the Complainant’s customers, in which it notified the change of the bank account to which the payments by such customer should be diverted. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has used false contact information when registering the disputed domain name. The Panel notes that the Respondent did not raise any objection to any of these contentions.
page 4 Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, such as impersonation/passing off, or phishing or other types of fraud, 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. 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. /Teruo Kato/ Teruo Kato Sole Panelist Date: June 25, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy