ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION OTOY, Inc v. Sahad Mohammed Riviera, Sahari Muti Inc Case No. D2024-3694 1. The Parties The Complainant is OTOY, Inc, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Markmonitor, United States. The Respondent is Sahad Mohammed Riviera, Sahari Muti Inc, Spain. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 11, 2024. On September 12, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On September 12, 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 September 16, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 6, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 7, 2024. The Center appointed Nicholas Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on October 9, 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 United States cloud graphics company. The Complainant is the creator of the Render Network, a peer-to-peer network that rents out idle GPU power to content creators and AI applications, to creators seeking the use of IT to create their graphics and other visual effects. The Render Network is well known in the field of graphics design and processing and is used by major studios as part of their production workflows. The Complainant holds a trademark registration for RENDER NETWORK (the “RENDER NETWORK Mark”) in the United States (registration number 6,008,576, registered March 10, 2020, for various IT services in class 42). The Domain Name was registered on January 31, 2024, and does not resolve to an active website. 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 Domain Name. Notably, the Complainant contends that; a) It is the owner of the RENDER NETWORK Mark, having registered the RENDER NETWORK Mark in the United States . The Domain Name is identical to the RENDER NETWORK Mark as it reproduces the RENDER NETWORK Mark in its entirety and a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”). b) There are no rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainant has not granted any license or authorization for the Respondent to use the RENDER NETWORK Mark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the RENDER NETWORK Mark, nor does it use the Domain Name for a bona fide purpose or legitimate noncommercial purpose. Indeed, the Domain Name does not resolve to an active webpage at all. c) The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. There is no plausible circumstance under which the Respondent could legitimately use the Domain Name, which is identical to the RENDER NETWORK Mark, other than in bad faith. The Respondent is a serial cybersquatter who has been the subject of numerous decisions against him under the Policy. Given the reputation of the RENDER NETWORK Mark and the Respondent’s pattern of bad faith, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s mark at the time of registration. In such circumstances, the Respondent’s passive holding of the Domain Name amounts to use of the Domain Name in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 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 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 entirety of the mark is reproduced within the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Domain Name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. 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 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 Domain Name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that: - before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent did not use, nor has it made demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.2. - the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has not been commonly known by the Domain Name. Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.3. - the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.4. - the record contains no other factors demonstrating rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the Domain Name. There is no evidence of any demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name at all or any other evidence that would give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Based on the available record, 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.
page 4 The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that given the nature of the Domain Name, being identical to the well-known RENDER NETWORK Mark, and the absence of any explanation and noting the Respondent’s status as a serial cybersquatter (with at least 6 prior proceedings under the Policy which have identified him as registering and using domain names in bad faith) it is most likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its trademark when registering the Domain Name. Further, the Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that there is no evidence of any use or demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name. UDRP panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While UDRP panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain name may be put. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the record, the Panel notes the reputation of the Complainant’s mark, the composition of the Domain Name, and the Respondent’s status as a serial cybersquatter and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. Furthermore, it is likely that the Domain Name is being held pending use as website or email address that, without the license of the Complainant, will offer or make reference to the Complainant in an illicit manner for the Respondent’s commercial gain. 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 Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant. /Nicholas Smith/ Nicholas Smith Sole Panelist Date: October 16, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy