The Complainants are QDD Athletes Village UK Limited (the “First Complainant”) and Get Living London Limited (the “Second Complainant”) of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“UK”), represented by Olswang LLP, UK.
The Respondent is Andy Thomas of London, UK. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with R (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 5, 2016. The Center transmitted its request for registrar verification to the Registrar on May 6, 2016. The Registrar replied the same day, confirming that the Domain Name is registered through it, that the Respondent is the current registrant, that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”) applies to the Domain Name, that it would remain locked during this proceeding, and that the registration agreement is in English. The Registrar provided the full contact details held on its WhoIs database in respect of the Domain Name.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the 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 paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on May 11, 2016. In accordance with paragraph 5 of the Rules, the due date for Response was May 31, 2016. This date was extended to June 4, 2016 in accordance with paragraph 5(b) of the Rules at the request of the billing contact for the Domain Name, which is an Internet service provider (“ISP”). The billing contact subsequently corresponded with the Center between May 23, 2016 and May 27, 2016, and was sent a copy of the Complaint, but did not make any substantive submission. No Response was received from the Respondent by the due date as extended. On June 6, 2016, the Center informed the parties that it would proceed with the appointment of the Panel.
The Center appointed Jonathan Turner as the sole panelist in this matter on June 9, 2016. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with paragraph 7 of the Rules.
Having reviewed the file, the Panel is satisfied that the Complaint complied with applicable formal requirements, was duly notified to the Respondent and has been submitted to a properly constituted Panel in accordance with the UDRP, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules. 4. Factual Background
The Second Complainant is a wholly owned subsidiary of the First Complainant. The Complainants were formed in 2011 and operate a property management and investment company in the UK under the mark GETLIVINGLONDON. They now manage over 1,400 properties and had a turnover of GBP 35 million in 2015. They have won or been shortlisted for a number of awards. Their chief executive is Neil Young.
The First Complainant is the owner of the UK registered trademark GETLIVINGLONDON in respect of various services, mainly relating to real property, pursuant to an application filed on March 4, 2013. The First Complainant is also the registrant of the domain name registered on November 27, 2011, and of other domain names consisting of the name “getlivinglondon” followed by a domain name suffix, registered on November 27, 2012.
The Domain Name was registered on February 9, 2016. The same day an email was sent purportedly from Andy Thomas giving the sender’s email address as neil.young@ to a Mr. Britton, an employee of the Complainants, in the following terms:
“Matt,
Are we able to send a payment now. Let me know so i can send the instruction i received shortly.
Regards
Neil Young
Chief Executive Officer”
The Domain Name is not being used for an active website; it is directed to a standard landing page of the billing contact.
The Complainants sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent on March 2, 2016 but did not receive a response. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainants
The Complainants contend that they have registered and unregistered rights in the mark GETLIVINGLONDON and that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to this mark, from which it differs only in the addition of the country code Top-Level Domain suffix (“ccTLD”).
The Complainants submit that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainants state that the Respondent is not known by the Domain Name or any corresponding name, has not used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, and is not making any noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name.
The Complainants alleged that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. They regard the email sent to one of their staff as an attempt at phishing with a view to defrauding them.
The Complainants seek a decision that the Domain Name be transferred to them. B. Respondent
As stated above, the Respondent did not submit a Response. 6. Discussion and Findings A. General
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainants must prove: (i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. It is appropriate to consider each of these requirements in turn.
In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences as it considers appropriate from the Respondent’s default in failing to file a response. This includes the acceptance of plausible evidence of the Complainants which has not been disputed. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds on the evidence that the First Complainant has a registered right in the mark GETLIVINGLONDON and that the Complainants have unregistered rights by virtue of their commercial use and promotion of this mark.
The Panel further considers that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to this mark, from which it differs only in the addition of the ccTLD, “.co”. Such suffices are normally to be discounted when applying the first condition of the UDRP. Furthermore, in this case, the Domain Name including the suffix differs in only one letter from the primary domain name used by the Complainants, .
The first requirement of the UDRP is satisfied. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds on the evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
The Respondent has not used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services. Nor is he making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of it. As stated above, the Domain Name resolves to a standard ISP landing page and the only other use made of the Domain Name by the Respondent has been in connection with the phishing attempt described below.
It is evident that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name or authorized to use it by the Complainants.
The second requirement of the UDRP is satisfied. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
As stated above, the Domain Name was registered recently, several years after the Complainants registered and commenced trading under the mark GETLIVINGLONDON.
Furthermore, the Panel is satisfied on the undisputed evidence that the email quoted above was part of an attempt to defraud the Complainants by phishing. If the recipient employee had responded to the email, the Respondent would no doubt have replied with details of an account to which payment should be made, thereby perpetrating a similar fraud to those achieved in CCS Media Limited and CCS Media Holdings Limited v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2015-1888.
The Panel regards this as clear evidence of registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith. While it does not fall neatly within any of the examples set out in paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP, as the Complainants rightly point out, these examples are not exhaustive. The Respondent was clearly attempting to use the Domain Name in bad faith and the proximity of this attempt to the registration indicates that it was also registered for this purpose.
Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The third requirement of the UDRP is satisfied. E. Remedy
The Complainants have requested a decision that the Domain Name be transferred to them, presumably jointly. However, the Panel considers that it is more appropriate to order that it be transferred to the First Complainant, which is the registered proprietor of the trademark and the registrant of the domain names mentioned above. 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 First Complainant, QDD Athletes Village UK Limited.
Jonathan Turner
Sole Panelist
Date: June 23, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy