WIPO Domain Name Decision DCO2020-0079 for palantir.co, palantir.ro

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Palantir Technologies Inc. v. Converscend SRL c/o Popovici Alex and Net Design SRL Case No. DCO2020-0079 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Palantir Technologies Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by RiskIQ, Inc., United States.

The Respondents are Converscend SRL c/o Popovici Alex, Romania (the “First Respondent”), and Net Design SRL, Romania (the “Second Respondent”). 2. The Domain Names and Registrars

The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). The disputed domain name is registered with ROTLD (the “Registrar”) (collectively the “Disputed Domain Names”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 3, 2020. On November 3, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Names. On November 3 and November 4 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 18, 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 amendment to the Complaint on December 9, 2020.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 6, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 26, 2021. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on February 17, 2021.

The Center appointed Gabriela Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on March 26, 2021. 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 United States based software developer that specialises in big data analytics. The Complainant’s software is used by customers across dozens of industries and over one hundred countries. The Complainant and its products have received widespread media coverage since 2009.

The Complainant is the owner of numerous trade mark registrations for PALANTIR in various jurisdictions, including, inter alia, the PALANTIR trade mark (Reg. No. 006174627) registered on August 29, 2008 in the European Union, the international PALANTIR trade mark (Reg. No. 1435896) registered on July 5, 2018, and the PALANTIR trade mark (Reg. No. 3,671,386) registered on August 25, 2009 in the United States.

The Complainant also owns and operates the domain name .

The Disputed Domain Name was initially registered by the Complainant on July 21, 2010 and, after it expired in 2017, it was registered by the First Respondent. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on August 18, 2017 by the Second Respondent. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant’s primary contentions can be summarised as follows:

(a) The Disputed Domain Names incorporate the Complainant’s PALANTIR trade mark in its entirety and are therefore identical to the Complainant’s PALANTIR trade mark.

(b) The Respondents do not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. The Complainant has never authorised or given permission to the Respondents, who are not associated with the Complainant in any way, to use its PALANTIR trade mark. The First Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s PALANTIR mark. The Disputed Domain Name is being held passively and the mere passive holding of this Disputed Domain Name does not confer any rights or legitimate interest in this Disputed Domain Name onto the Second Respondent.

(c) The Respondents must have been aware of the Complainant’s PALANTIR trade mark when they registered the Disputed Domain Names. The fact that the Disputed Domain Name redirects to the Complainant’s official website while the Respondents retain control over the redirection is clear evidence of the Respondents’ intent to abusively profit from the reputation of the Complainant. The fact that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a blank page does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. As both Disputed Domain Names consist solely of the Complainant’s PALANTIR mark, their registrations may be a pattern of conduct that further evidences bad faith registration and use. B. Respondents

The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

The fact that the Respondents have not submitted a formal Response does not automatically result in a decision in favour of the Complainant. However, the Respondents’ failure to file a Response may result in the Panel drawing appropriate inferences from such default. The Panel may also accept all reasonable and supported allegations and inferences flowing from the Complainant as true (see Entertainment Shopping AG v. Nischal Soni, Sonik Technologies,WIPO Case No. D2009-1437 and Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM,WIPO Case No. D2000-0403). 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Multiple Respondents

Section 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) provides that where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels will take into account whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties.

In this case, the Complainant argues that:

(i) and are both resolving to the same IP address, and the content on the websites to which they resolve is identical;

(ii) the Respondents have used the same unique name servers (including those of the Romanian Registrar) for both of the Disputed Domain Names on multiple occasions; and

(iii) the Disputed Domain Name was registered by the First Respondent from Romania, which is the same country as the corresponding top-level domain “.ro” for the Disputed Domain Name .

The Panel also notes that the Respondents did not provide any substantive response to the Complaint. In light of the above, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s contentions and finds that the Complainant has established that the Disputed Domain Names are more likely than not under the common control of both Respondents and it would be fair and equitable to all Parties and procedurally efficient to have the Complainant’s claims consolidated against the two registrants of the Disputed Domain Names.

As such, the Panel allows the consolidation as requested by the Complainant. 6.2 Language of Proceeding

Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that “unless otherwise agreed by the parties, or specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding”.

In the present case, the registration agreement of is in English, the registration agreement of is in Romanian, and the Respondents appear to be based in Romania.

The Complainant has requested that English be the language of the proceedings for the following reasons:

(a) The Respondents will not be deprived of a fair opportunity to present their case by conducting the proceedings in English because the First Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name under terms of registration in English;

(b) By proceeding in Romanian, the Complainant would need to translate documents into Romanian, which would frustrate the aim of conducting the proceeding with due expedition;

(c) The script of the Disputed Domain Names is Latin and is the same script as that of the Complainant’s PALANTIR mark, and the Disputed Domain Name redirects users to the Complainant’s corporate site that is rendered in English;

(d) The webmails hosted on both Disputed Domain Names are rendered in English; and

(e) It would be unfair to require the Complainant to proceed in Romanian and the delay and cost of translating evidence would be unwarranted.

The Respondents did not comment on or oppose the Complainant’s request.

Panels have to take into account all relevant circumstances of the case and exercise their discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement in a fair and just manner. In the present case, the Panel accepts that the Complainant is unable to communicate in Romanian. Additional expenses will be incurred if the Complainant is required to submit documents in Romanian and the proceeding may otherwise proceed expeditiously in English. Furthermore, the Respondents did not object to the Complainant’s request to use English as the language of the proceedings.

Having considered the circumstances above, the Panel finds that both Parties have been given a fair opportunity to present their case and that the Respondents would not be prejudiced should the language of the proceeding be English. The Panel therefore determines that this administrative proceeding shall be conducted in English. 6.3 Substantive Issues

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove each of the following three elements:

(i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(ii) the Respondents have 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 by the Respondents in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the PALANTIR trade mark, based on its various trade mark registrations.

It is well established that in making an enquiry as to whether a trade mark is identical or confusingly similar to a domain name, the Top-Level Domain extension (“.co” and “.ro” in this case) may be disregarded. See section 1.11 of WIPO Overview 3.0.

The Disputed Domain Names incorporate the Complainant’s PALANTIR trade mark in its entirety without any prefixes or suffixes.

As such, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names are identical to the Complainant’s PALANTIR trade mark, and accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once a complainant establishes a prima facie case in respect of the lack of rights or legitimate interests of a respondent in a disputed domain name, the respondent then carries the burden of demonstrating that it has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Where the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

The Panel accepts that the Complainant has not authorised the Respondents to use the PALANTIR trade mark, and there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondents, which would otherwise entitle the Respondents to use the PALANTIR trade mark. Accordingly, the Panel is of the view that a prima facie case has been established and it is for the Respondents to show rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. As the Respondents have not submitted a Response, the Panel will assess the case based on the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the Complainant’s evidence.

Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the Respondents may establish rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name by demonstrating any of the following:

(i) before any notice to them of the dispute, the Respondents’ use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name was in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;

(ii) the Respondents have been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, even if they have acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or

(iii) the Respondents are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.

There is no evidence to suggest that the Respondents’ use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Names or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Names was in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel agrees that the Respondents’ use of the Disputed Domain Names cannot be regarded as legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the Disputed Domain Name resolves to the Complainant’s official corporate site without the Complainant’s consent and is being passively held and resolves to a blank page. Such use of the Disputed Domain Names is capable of misleading and diverting visitors and/or tarnishing the Complainant’s PALANTIR trade mark.

In addition, there is no evidence to prove that the Respondents have trade mark rights corresponding to the Disputed Domain Names, or that they have become known by the Disputed Domain Names.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names and the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a widely-known trade mark by an unaffiliated entity (particularly domain names which incorporate a mark plus a descriptive term) can already by itself create a presumption of bad faith. See paragraph 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

The Complainant’s PALANTIR trade mark appears to be fairly well-known worldwide. A quick Internet search shows that the top search results returned for “PALANTIR” are the Complainant’s official website and several third party websites making references to or selling the Complainant’s products and services. As the Disputed Domain Name resolves to the Complainant’s corporate site and both Disputed Domain Names incorporate the Complainant’s PALANTIR mark (which has no dictionary meaning) in its entirety, the Respondents must have been aware of the Complainant and their rights in the PALANTIR trade mark when registering the Disputed Domain Names. The fact that the Disputed Domain Names incorporate the Complainant’s PALANTIR mark in its entirety also creates a presumption of bad faith.

In addition, the Panel finds that the following factors further support a finding that the Disputed Domain Names were registered and are being used by the Respondents in bad faith:

(i) The Respondents failed to respond to the Complainant’s contentions and have provided no evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the Disputed Domain Names;

(ii) It is difficult to conceive of any plausible use of the Disputed Domain Names that would amount to good faith use, given that the Disputed Domain Names are identical to the Complainant’s PALANTIR mark and similar to its official domain name ;

(iii) The Disputed Domain Name redirects users to the Complainant’s official website, which is likely to mislead Internet users into believing it is associated with and/or endorsed by the Complainant, thereby causing harm to the Complainant’s legitimate rights; and

(iv) Having considered the relevant factors, such as the degree of distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s mark, the failure of the Respondents to submit a response, and the implausibility of any good faith use to which the Disputed Domain Names may be put, the passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding.

In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondents registered and have been using the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith, and paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied. 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 Names, and , be transferred to the Complainant.

Gabriela Kennedy
Sole Panelist
Date: April 9, 2021

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy