The Complainant Vodafone Group Plc of Newbury, Berkshire, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("United Kingdom"), represented by Olswang LLP, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is masih beheshti esfahani of Esfahan, Islamic Republic of Iran. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with IRNIC. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on April 3, 2014. On April 4, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to IRNIC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 7, 2014, IRNIC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. Hard copies of the Complaint were received by the Center on April 14, 2014.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or "irDRP"), the Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 16, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 6, 2014. On May 7, 2014, the Center notified the Respondent's default.
The Center appointed Michael J. Spence as the sole panelist in this matter on May 15, 2014. 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 one of the largest mobile communications companies in the world with a market capitalization of approximately GBP 108.1 billion. It operates under the trade mark VODAFONE and associated marks, which together constitute one of the most recognized brands in the world. The disputed domain name was registered on November 3, 2004. The Respondent has been the proprietor of the disputed domain name for 10 years but has neither yet made any use of it, nor any apparent preparations for use, other than to redirect users to a website containing links to other websites including some offering services in competition with those of the Complainant. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trade mark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; that the disputed domain name was registered or is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name contains the Complainant's trade mark in its entirety. There is therefore no doubt that the possibility for confusion exists, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
It is for the Complainant to establish, at least prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, Belupod.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o.,WIPO Case No. D2004-0110). Use for a website ultimately redirecting Internet users to sponsored links including those of competitors of the Complainant, cannot constitute use sufficient to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent has ever used, or made preparations to use, the disputed domain name in any other way. Moreover, it is difficult to imagine what legitimate use might be made of a domain name entailing such a very strong likelihood of confusion with a well-known brand.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name. C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith
Use for the purpose of redirecting Internet users to sponsored links, including those of competitors of the Complainant is perhaps the most classic case of registration and use in bad faith. That the sponsored links include those of competitors of the Complainant evinces as intention to profit from the confusion created because the likelihood of confusion between the Complainant's trade mark and the disputed domain name are in this case so strong.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the third element of paragraph 4(a) 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 disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Michael J. Spence
Sole Panelist
Date: May 24, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy