ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Verisure Sàrl v. Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico Case No. D2024-4583 1. The Parties The Complainant is Verisure Sàrl, Switzerland, represented by Abion AB, Switzerland. The Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 7, 2024. On November 8, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 8, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 11, 2024, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 11, 2024. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 November 12, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 2, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 3, 2024.
page 2 The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on December 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. 4. Factual Background Complainant, Verisure Sàrl, is a provider of professionally monitored security solutions including home alarms. The Complainant has more than five million customers in 17 countries and employs more than 28,000 people across the world. Complainant owns and uses the mark VERISURE in connection with its goods and services. These include registrations for VERISURE in the United States of America (No. 79216255, registered on July 10, 2018), the European Union (No. 006674915, registered on March 26, 2010), and an International trademark registration (No. 1052667, registered on December 17, 2009) that has been extended to a number of jurisdictions around the world. Complainant also owns and uses the domain name in connection with a website providing information concerning Complainant and its products and services. The disputed domain name was registered on June 5, 2024, and resolves to a website with pay per click ads. 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. According to the Complainant, each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in the present case. First, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark registrations of the Complainant. Second, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has neither rights nor legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Third, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that a complainant must prove each of the following elements with respect to each disputed domain name:
page 3 (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (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. The burden of proof of each element is borne by the Complainant. The Respondent’s default does not by itself mean that the Complainant is deemed to have prevailed. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.3. 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 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 entirety of the VERISURE mark is reproduced 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 term “sharepoint” 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. In the present case, the Complainant has submitted sufficient and uncontested evidence that it holds well established prior rights in the VERISURE mark.
page 4 The Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to use its VERISURE mark, in a domain name, or otherwise. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name has been linked to a website displaying various pay-per-click (“PPC”) links. Such use of the disputed domain name does not represent bona fide offering of goods or services since it trades on reputation and goodwill associated with the Complainant’s mark. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.9. 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 Panel notes that: - the Complainant and its VERISURE trademarks are known internationally, with trademark registrations across numerous countries and has been widely used; - the Complainant has marketed and sold its services using the VERISURE trademark since 2008, which is well before Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name. - the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on June 5, 2024. - the Respondent is in default. - the Respondent has been the subject of more than 200 UDRP cases. - the disputed domain name is currently not in use, however at the time of filing the Complaint it was used for PPC ads. As the PPC links resolved to websites competing with the Complainant’s business, there is evidence of an intent to capitalize on the goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel therefore notes that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith since the Respondent attempted to attract Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the disputed domain name’s source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement; an activity clearly detrimental to the Complainant’s business under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel also notes that the Respondent has been found to have engaged in a pattern of cybersquatting (see e.g., Starbucks Corporation v. Registration Private, Domains by Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case No. D2019-1991). The Panel considers that the pattern of registering trademark-abusive domain names constitutes further evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.2. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy
page 5 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. /Pablo A. Palazzi/ Pablo A. Palazzi Sole Panelist Date: December 23, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy