The Complainant is Iqoption Europe Limited, Cyprus, represented by Brand Enforcement Team 101 Domain, United States of America.
The Respondent is Edmunds Gaidis, Latvia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 19, 2020. On March 19, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 20, 2020, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 23, 2020 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 March 23, 2020. 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 April 8, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 28, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 29, 2020. The Center appointed Marilena Comanescu as the sole panelist in this matter on May 5, 2020. 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 Iqoption Europe Limited is a foreign exchange broker located in Cyprus and operating worldwide. The Complainant holds trademark registrations for IQOPTION, such as the European Union trademark registration number 015546625 filed on June 15, 2016 and registered on October 4, 2016 for services in class 36. The Complainant holds domain names incorporating the mark IQOPTION, such as The disputed domain name The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its well-known trademark IQOPTION, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In view of the Respondent’s default, the discussion and findings will be based upon the contentions in the Complaint and any reasonable position that can be attributable to the Respondent. Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant can only succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy if the following circumstances are met: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel will further analyze the potential concurrence of the above circumstances. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant holds rights in the IQOPTION trademark. The disputed domain name It is well established in decisions under the UDRP that the country-code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) or generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) (e.g.,“.com”, “.co”, “.best”) may typically be disregarded for the purpose of consideration of confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name. Given the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name The Complainant asserts that the Respondent does not hold any trademark rights, license or authorization whatsoever to use the mark IQOPTION, that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use or a bona fide offering of goods and services. Under the Policy, “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. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element”. See section 2.1 of theWIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). The Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions and has not come forward with relevant evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case. There is nothing in the record suggesting that the Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users on a website providing competing services to those offered by the Complainant. These are not activities falling under the circumstances listed by paragraph 4(c) of the UDRP as demonstrating the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, nor an activity from which rights or legitimate interests could arise. Further, the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s trademark and, generally, UDRP panels have found that such domain names carry a high risk of implied affiliation. See section 2.5 of theWIPO Overview 3.0. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant holds trademark rights for IQOPTION since at least 2016 and registered the domain name For the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, knowing the Complainant and targeting its trademark. At the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name was redirected to a website offering competing services to those provided by the Complainant. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy provides that the use of a domain name to intentionally attempt “to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location” is evidence of registration and use in bad faith. The Respondent was using without permission the Complainant’s trademark in order to get traffic on its web portal or to misleadingly divert Internet users to third parties websites, and thus to obtain commercial gain from the false impression created with regard to a potential affiliation or connection with the Complainant. Paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy provides a circumstance of bad faith registration and use when the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor. Noting that the scenarios enumerated in UDRP paragraph 4(b) are non-exhaustive, UDRP panels have applied the notion of “competitor” beyond the concept of an ordinary commercial or business competitor to also include the concept of person “who acts in opposition to another” for some means of commercial gain, direct or otherwise. See section 3.1.3 of theWIPO Overview 3.0. In the present case, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name, virtually identical with the Complainant’s trademark and very similar to the Complainant’s main website to redirect the Internet users to a third party website promoting services identical to those offered by the Complainant. For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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 Marilena Comanescu
Sole Panelist
Date: May 14, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy