The Complainant is Plentyoffish Media ULC of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, represented by Locke Lord LLP, United States of America ("United States").
The Respondents are Vladimir Dasevskij of Utena, Lithuania / D Privacy Service, Identity Protect Limited of Surrey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; DKD Dating Network c/o Lithuanian, USA and Russian Joint Venture JSC DKD of Visaginas, Lithuania. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Domain Name") is registered with Mesh Digital Limited (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on March 3, 2017. On March 3, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 4, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondents "D Privacy Service, Identity Protect Limited" and "DKD Dating Network c/o Lithuanian, USA and Russian Joint Venture JSC DKD", and contact information in the Complaint. The Registrar confirmed that "Vladimir Dasevskij" is the registrant of the Domain Name. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 7, 2017 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 10, 2017.
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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 13, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 2, 2017. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents' default on April 3, 2017.
The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on April 6, 2017. 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 in the business of providing online dating services since 2001. The Complainant owns a dating and social networking mobile application named "POF - Free Dating App" and the website "".
The Complainant owns United States trademark registrations such as no. 3,302,508 for PLENTY OF FISH, registered on October 2, 2007, no. 3,251,639 for PLENTYOFFISH, registered on June 12, 2007, and no. 3,251,640 for POF, registered on June 12, 2007.
The Complainant spends substantial sums each year to advertise and promote its dating services.
The Domain Name was created on March 25, 2013. It was due to expire on March 25, 2017, but it is kept active and locked by the registrar pending this proceeding.
The Domain Name resolves to a website with dating services. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant provides United States trademark registrations. The Complainant states that the Domain Name is virtually identical to the Complainant's trademarks.
The Complainant argues that the Respondents are not affiliated in any way with the Complainant. The Respondents have not been commonly known by the Domain Name, and that the Respondents have no history of using the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. Pursuant to the Complainant, the Respondents lure consumers with a confusingly similar web address and a website with similar content. The Respondents web pages display the exact trademarks of the Complainant. Such use cannot be bona fide use, since its only purpose is to divert Internet users for Respondents' commercial gain by misappropriating the Complainant's goodwill.
Finally, as to bad faith, the Complainant has been in the dating business over a decade before the Respondents registered the Domain Name. The Respondents are displaying the Complainant's exact trademarks. This proves that the Respondents must have known about the Complainant and its trademark at the time of registration of the Domain Name. The Complainant thus concludes that the Respondents registered and use the Domain Name to misappropriate the Complainant's trademarks in order to deceive consumers and draw an improper association with the Complainant. The Respondents deliberately attempt to attract users by creating confusion with the Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Domain Name. B. Respondents
The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark POF.
The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name consists of the Complainant's trademark.
For the purposes of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is in accordance with UDRP panel consensus for the Panel to ignore the country code Top-Level Domain ".pw".
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondents have no registered trademarks or trade names corresponding to the Domain Name. The Complainant has not granted any authorization to the Respondents to register a domain name containing its trademark or otherwise make use of its mark.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondents have not rebutted the Complainant's allegations.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that the Respondents must have been aware of the Complainant's trademarks and its business when the Domain Name was registered. The Complainant has used its trademarks long before the registration of the Domain Name.
The Domain Name resolves to a website similar to those of the Complainant. The Respondents make without any authorization use of the Complainant's trademarks on the webpage. Based on the evidence, it seems like the Respondents try to lure consumers with a confusingly similar Internet address and website. Such use is indeed not bona fide use, since its purpose is to divert Internet users for the Respondents' commercial gain by riding on the Complainant's goodwill.
Furthermore, the Respondents have not replied to the Complainant's allegations.
For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes, on the balance of probabilities, that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of the paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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 Complainant.
Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: April 10, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy