ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Panavision International, L.P., Panavision Inc. v. Max Life, Gary Wells Case No. D2024-4919 1. The Parties The Complainants are Panavision International, L.P., United States of America (“United States” or “US”), and Panavision Inc., United States (collectively, the “Complainant”), represented by Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, United States. The Respondent is Max Life, Gary Wells, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name
is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 27, 2024. On November 28, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 28, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY, See PrivacyGuardian.org) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 29, 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 December 4, 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 December 6, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 26, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 27, 2024.
page 2 The Center appointed R. Eric Gaum as the sole panelist in this matter on January 6, 2025. 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 The Complainant is a provider of ultra-precision digital imaging and visual cinematographic equipment, including cameras, optical lenses, photographic and related lighting equipment, and accessories. The Complainant owns numerous US trademark registrations for the mark PANAVISION, listed below: Trademark Jurisdiction Status Reg./App. No. PANAVISION United States Registered: May 22, 1956 627,362 PANAVISION United States Registered: February 27, 1968 845,014 PANAVISION United States Registered: September 5, 1967 834,705 PANAVISION United States Registered: July 14, 1981 1,160,790 PANAVISION United States Registered: May 7, 1996 1,972,238 PANAVISION United States Registered: August 15, 2006 3,128,333 PANAVISION United States Registered: December 12, 2006 3,184,442 PANAVISION United States Registered: June 17, 2008 3,447,278 PANAVISION United States Registered: September 6, 2011 4,022,955 The Complainant also has more than 180 PANAVISION trademark registrations around the world. The Complainant also owns and operates the domain name registered in 1998. The disputed domain name was registered on November 17, 2024. According to the unrebutted evidence, the disputed domain name was used to send fraudulent emails. 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 the following: The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The Respondent is engaged in the unauthorized use of the Complainant’s registered and common law trademarks in a deliberate attempt to mislead and confuse members of the public, including third parties seeking job opportunities with the Complainant, into mistakenly believing that they are corresponding with a hiring manager at the Complainant while engaging, instead, with the Respondent. Worse, the Respondent is using the Complainant’s trademarks in a scheme to defraud such third parties, by masquerading as one or more employees of the Complainant to attempt to obtain, upon information and belief, sensitive personal and/or
page 3 financial information from third parties who are providing that information under the auspices of obtaining employment with and/or an interview for a (fictious) position with the Complainant. The Respondent has purposely used the disputed domain name to attempt to defraud others by posing as a hiring manager of the Complainant and fraudulently communicating via email regarding offers for interviews for positions with the Complainant that do not exist, in an apparent attempt, upon information and belief, to solicit and obtain sensitive personal and/or financial information from them. More specifically, the Respondent misrepresented to others that it was a “Human Resources Officer” employed by the Complainant named […] – the Complainant notes that it does not employ any individuals by that name – and emailed third parties advertising false job offerings for positions with the Complainant and offering to set up interviews with those individuals – at least one of which then reached out to the Complainant to confirm the validity of the fraudulent communication. Therefore, the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes 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 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 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. Although the addition of other terms here, “career”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term 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.
page 4 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, claimed impersonation/passing off, distribution of fraudulent emails, or other types of fraud 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 Panel notes that the Respondent has purposely registered and used the disputed domain name to attempt to defraud others by posing as a hiring manager of the Complainant and fraudulently communicating via email regarding non-existent offers for interviews for positions with Complainant, in what appears to be an attempt to solicit and obtain sensitive personal and/or financial information from them. More specifically, the Respondent misrepresented to others that it was a “Human Resources Officer” employed by the Complainant allegedly named […] and emailed third parties advertising false job offerings for positions with the Complainant and offering to set up interviews with those individuals. This indicates the Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant when registering the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent deliberately targeted the Complainant. 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 here, claimed impersonation/passing off, distribution of fraudulent emails, 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. /R. Eric Gaum/ R. Eric Gaum Sole Panelist Date: January 20, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy