Complainant is Realme Chongqing Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd., China, represented by Thomsen Trampedach GmbH, Denmark.
Respondent is Omar Icon, Colombia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 30, 2020. On September 30, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 1, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 1, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 21, 2020. The Center received communications by email from Respondent on October 1, 2020 and October 3, 2020. Respondent did not submit a formal response. On October 22, 2020, the Center informed the Parties that it would proceed to panel appointment. The Center appointed Lorelei Ritchie as the sole panelist in this matter on November 23, 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 Undisputed facts include the following. Since 2010, Complainant, based in Chongqing, China, has been manufacturing smartphones and other devices, including under its mark, REALME. Complainant owns several registrations for its stylized REALME mark, including in Colombia, where Respondent lists an address of record. In this regard, among Complainant’s registrations is International Registration No. 1476237, designating Colombia, among others (registered April 3, 2019). The disputed domain name Complainant contends that the (i) disputed domain name In particular, Complainant contends that it owns the distinctive REALME mark, which it uses in connection with mobile smartphones and related products and services globally. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name consists of Complainant’s registered mark, in its entirety, and merely adds the country code Top-Level Domain “.net.co”. Complainant contends that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to lure in customers looking for Complainant, with a website that appears to mimic an official website of Complainant. Complainant further contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name registration or use of the disputed domain name. Respondent has no affiliation with Complainant. Complainant has not authorized any activities by Respondent, nor any use of its trademarks thereby. Rather, Complainant contends that Respondent has acted in bad faith in registering and using the disputed domain name, when Respondent clearly knew of Complainant’s rights, and that Respondent has further attempted to profit by offering the disputed domain name for sale in excess of reasonable costs. B. Respondent Respondent did not file a formal reply to Complainant’s contentions in this proceeding. Respondent did nevertheless send several communications to the Center, offering to sell the disputed domain name. On October 1, 2020, Respondent sent a message stating, “We are open for negotiation. Realme.net.co is on sale for US $15,000. Thanks.” Respondent sent another email the same day, as well as one on October 3, 2020, expressing a willingness to “meet an agreement” with Complainant. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar This Panel must first determine whether the disputed domain name Typically a Top-Level Domain may be ignored for purposes of considering this first element. SeeCompagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Whois Guard Inc., Whois Guard Protected / Saad Zaeem, Caramel Tech Studios,WIPO Case No. D2017-0234. See also Calvin Klein, Inc., Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v. Whois Guard Protected, Whois Guard, Inc. / StayU Kasabov,WIPO Case No. D2015-2306. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph (4)(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Policy provides some guidance to respondents on how to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue in a UDRP dispute. For example, paragraph 4(c) of the Policy gives examples that might show rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. These examples include: (i) use of the domain name “in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services”; (ii) demonstration that Respondent has been “commonly known by the domain name”; or (iii) “legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue”. Respondent did not submit a reply to the Complaint, however. Rather, as mentioned in Section 4 of this Panel’s decision, Respondent has used the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to a website that appears to mimic Complaint’s website but which is unaffiliated with Complainant or Complainant’s products and services. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has made a showing of Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which Respondent has not rebutted. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith There are several ways that a complainant can demonstrate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith. For example, paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy states that bad faith can be shown where “by using the domain name [respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the] website or location”. As noted in Section 4 of this Panel’s decision, Respondent has set up a URL associated with the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that appears to mimic an official website of Complainant, and which attempts to confuse consumers by advertising REALME products and services. Respondent is thus trading on the goodwill of Complainant’s trademarks to attract Internet users, presumably for Respondent’s own commercial gain. Furthermore, as noted above, after being notified of this proceeding, Respondent contacted the Center, offering the disputed domain name for sale for USD 15,000, without any indication that this amount reflects Respondent’s own out of pocket cost. Thus the Panel finds that Respondent “registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs,” as contemplated by paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. See Ticketmaster Corp. v. Spider Web Design, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-1551. The Panel finds that for purposes of the UDRP, Complainant has shown sufficient evidence that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision For all 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 Lorelei Ritchie
Sole Panelist
Dated: December 7, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy