The Complainant is Stylight GmbH of Munich, Germany, represented by BPM Legal, Germany.
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service c/o Dynadot of San Mateo, California, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 20, 2016. On July 20, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 22, 2016, 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 July 27, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 16, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 17, 2016.
The Center appointed Miguel B. O’Farrell as the sole panelist in this matter on August 25, 2016. 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, Stylight GmbH, provides an online platform which offers fashion featuring a selection of the latest trends and products from fashion shops and boutiques online combined with outfits of international fashion bloggers, on one website. The Complainant claims to have an online presence in numerous countries worldwide and that over 6 million people around the globe use the Complainant’s different platforms.
The Complainant inter alia owns European Union Trademark Registration No. 007416059 STYLIGHT dated June 16, 2009, International Registration No. 1011334 STYLIGHT registered on May 14, 2009, and United States of America Registration No. 3910299 STYLIGHT registered on January 25, 2011.
The disputed domain name was registered on June 17, 2016. The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with pay-per-click links to third-parties’ websites in the same fashion area that the Complainant is active in. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends the following:
That it was established in 2008 and provides an online platform which inter alia offers fashion from over 100 online shops. Today, over 6 million people around the world use the Complainant’s different platforms and that it has an online presence in at least 15 countries.
That it owns trademark registrations for STYLIGHT, details of which are mentioned in Section 4 above. The trademark STYLIGHT is a highly distinctive mark and, to the best of Complainant’s knowledge, is solely connected to the Complainant and not used in commerce by any third party.
The Complainant provides its services online at several country related domain names such as , , and many others, including and owns numerous other domain names which include the STYLIGHT trademark.
The Complainant has a strong online business accompanied by a large portfolio of domain names and is providing its services for nearly 7 years with, at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, over 6 million people around the globe using the Complainant’s different platforms. “Stylight” is not a word that a trader would legitimately choose unless seeking to create an impression of association with the Complainant. Under such circumstances, it is inconceivable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name unaware of the Complainant and its STYLIGHT marks.
The disputed domain name was registered on June 17, 2016 and is used in connection with a parking website providing advertising links to the Complainant’s competitors’ websites.
The Respondent is a privacy service known for shielding infringing domain name registrations and it has been involved in other UDRP proceedings, which all resulted in the transfer of the disputed domain name to the respective complainant.
The Complainant has not licensed or permitted the Respondent to use its STYLIGHT mark and there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The website at the disputed domain name is used to earn pay-per-click revenues for redirecting Internet users to third parties’ websites and thus capitalizing on the Complainant’s trademark. Such use is neither a bona fide use of the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.
There is no evidence that suggests that the Respondent trades under the disputed domain name, the name “Stylight”, or is commonly known by any of them.
The Respondent has no rights nor legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, which it has registered and uses in bad faith to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website.
Finally, the Complainant requests the Panel to order the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order for the disputed domain name to be or transferred:
(i) the disputed domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
(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.
On the basis of the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the Panel concludes as follows: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel considers that under the Policy the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark STYLIGHT in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant’s trademark is totally included in the disputed domain name and following what has become the consensus view among UDRP panels (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition, paragraph 1.2) the Panel shall disregard the generic suffix “.co” in the confusing similarity test.
Therefore, the Complainant has succeeded on this first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The second element that the Complainant must prove pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Policy, paragraph 4(c) sets out various ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name.
Although the Policy states that the complainant must prove each of the elements in paragraph 4(a), it is often observed that it is difficult for a complainant to prove a negative, i.e., that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. It has therefore become generally accepted under the Policy that, once a complainant has presented a prima facie showing of a respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, the burden of submitting evidence therefore shifts to the respondent. The respondent must then prove its rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in order to refute the prima facie case.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and so the burden of production of evidence has effectively been shifted to the Respondent, who did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions and, therefore, has not made such showing.
None of the circumstances provided in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, nor any other to demonstrate a right or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name have been proved by the Respondent who now carries this burden. Furthermore, based on the available record, the Panel sees no indication that any of the circumstances listed in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy are present.
Therefore, the Panel considers that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and thus the Complainant has made the second prong. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
In accordance with paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the third element that a complainant must prove is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Policy in paragraph 4(b) sets out various circumstances, which may be treated by the Panel as evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.
In particular, paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy holds that if the circumstances indicate that the disputed domain name was registered for the purpose of attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website location, then this is evidence of bad faith registration and use on behalf of the respondent.
The disputed domain name was registered on June 17, 2016, i.e., many years after the Complainant had acquired registered rights in the trademark STYLIGHT and, as argued by the Complainant, it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant and the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name.
There appears to be no reason to justify why the Respondent selected the Complainant’s distinctive trademark STYLIGHT for its disputed domain name, other than to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark and leading the Internet users to believe that there is some kind of link or association between them, which is certainly not the case.
The disputed domain website redirects Internet users to a parking website that provides links to third party websites, including links to websites that compete with Complainant’s websites.
In all probability, by using the website for sponsored links, the Respondent is trying to attract traffic intended for the Complainant’s website to its own for the purpose of earning click-through revenues from Internet users searching for the Complainant’s website. This is cannot be considered a fair use of the disputed domain name, but rather bad faith use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See L’Oreal, Biotherm, Lacome Parfums et Beauté & Cie. v Unasi, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2005-0623.
This is not the first time in which the Respondent, which renders a privacy service, is involved in a UDRP proceeding. It has previously been involved in several cases which resulted in the transfer of the disputed domain name to the respective complainant. See cases Cube Limited v. Super Privacy Service c/o Dynadot / chongqing c/o Dynadot,WIPO Case No. D2015-2206 and Veikkaus Oy v. Super Privacy Service Dynadot,WIPO Case No. D2015-2048.
In view of the foregoing, and in absence of a plausible explanation from the Respondent to the contrary, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the Complainant has also made out the third prong. 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.
Miguel B. O’Farrell
Sole Panelist
Date: September 5, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy