The Complainant is Virgin Enterprises Limited of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented Stobbs IP Limited, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Damon Serji of Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran, self-represented. 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 October 24, 2016. On October 25, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to IRNIC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 26, 2016, 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 November 10, 2016.
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 November 11, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 1, 2016. On December 2, 2016, the Center notified the Respondent’s default. The Respondent filed a late Response on December 8, 2016.
The Panel, using its discretion under paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules, has decided to accept the Respondent’s late Response.
The Center appointed Kiyoshi Tsuru as the sole panelist in this matter on December 16, 2016. 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 Virgin Enterprises Limited from London, the United Kingdom, a company which originated in 1970 and has expanded into a wide variety of businesses.
The Complainant owns several trademark registrations, amongst which are the following:
Trademark
Registration Number
Registration Date
Jurisdiction
VIRGIN (stylized)
1287270
May 3, 1991
United Kingdom
VIRGIN
1287265
July 19, 1991
United Kingdom
VIRGIN
1287267
July 17, 1992
United Kingdom
VIRGIN
578781
February 24, 1999
European Union Trademark
VIRGIN
611467
January 26, 1999
European Union Trademark
VIRGIN
1470186
August 28, 2003
European Union Trademark
The Complainant also owns several domain names, amongst which are the following:
Domain Name
Registration Date
September 10, 1997
January 28, 1998
January 16, 2013
January 27, 2004
November 20, 2003
December 30, 1999
The Respondent is Damon Serji, domiciled in the Islamic Republic of Iran, who has claimed to be the shareholder of Tordak Ltd in the Islamic Republic of Iran, a company apparently engaged in the food manufacturing and distribution business. The Respondent claims that said company distributes its goods in Europe through the company Euro Taste Limited in Germany.
The Respondent owns several domain names, among which are the following:
Domain Name
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name, , on December 27, 2010. At the time the Complaint was filed, the disputed domain name resolved to an inactive website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant argues the following:
(a) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
That the Complainant has rights over the VIRGIN trademarks.
That the Complainant has a significant reputation and goodwill in the VIRGIN trademarks in the United Kingdom and abroad, in connection to a wide range of goods and services.
That the Virgin Group comprises over 200 companies worldwide.
That the Complainant’s trademarks are commonly used alongside an additional descriptive element.
That the Complainant owns over 4,500 domain names, incorporating the term “VIRGIN”.
That the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to the VIRGIN trademarks, in which the Complainant has rights.
That the public has become accustomed to the VIRGIN trademarks, and that the country code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD) “.ir” adds no distinctiveness to the disputed domain name.
That several domain names, containing typographical errors, have been transferred to the Complainant in previous Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) decisions.
That panels in other UDRP decisions have held the reputation and goodwill of the VIRGIN trademark, and have determined that a likelihood of confusion does exist in connection to domain names that comprise the term “VIRGIN” and an additional element.
(b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
That the Respondent has no rights over the VIRGIN trademarks.
That, due to the Complainant’s reputation, there is no believable or realistic reason for registration or use of the disputed domain name, other than to take advantage of the VIRGIN trademarks.
That the disputed domain name resolves to a website with no actual content.
That the disputed domain name is not being used for a bona fide offering of goods and services.
That the Respondent is not making a legitimate or fair use of the disputed domain name.
That, when approached by the Complainant, the Respondent failed to specify a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
That the Respondent is not commonly known by the name “virgin” and does not have
trademark registrations for VIRGIN.
(c) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
That Internet users reaching the website to which the disputed domain name resolves will expect to find an official website of the Complainant.
That the Respondent has acquired the disputed domain name with the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring it to the Complainant or to a competitor, for an amount exceeding his out-of-pocket expenses related to the registration.
That the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its trademark in a corresponding domain name.
That the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant.
That, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website, creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website or of a product or service on the website.
That the Respondent intends to sell the disputed domain name for a large sum in the future.
That, when contacted by the Complainant regarding the disputed domain name, the Respondent explained in July 27, 2016 that they had not hosted a single page on the disputed domain name since its registration.
That the Respondent has certain domain name registrations comprising other famous trademarks, showing a pattern of conduct and a systematic acquisition of domain names in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent argues the following:
(a) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Respondent argues that the Top-Level Domain “.ir” distinguishes the mark VIRGIN from the disputed domain name by linking the disputed domain name to a country in which the mark VIRGIN has no connections.
That the mark VIRGIN has no apparent presence in relation to the general public of Iran, and that there is no solid reason to find that users will confuse the disputed domain name with the marks of the Complainant.
That the disputed domain name was registered in 2010 when there were less connections between the VIRGIN marks and the disputed domain name.
(b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
That the Complainant has not submitted evidence showing that the general public in the Islamic Republic of Iran has any awareness of the VIRGIN trademarks.
That the disputed domain name was registered under the ccTLD for the Islamic Republic of Iran, which leads to the presumption that the disputed domain name and its relationship to the VIRGIN trademark should be considered within the Islamic Republic of Iran’s population in mind. That the population of the Islamic Republic of Iran is the main target of the disputed domain name.
That the disputed domain name was registered with the purpose of marketing and selling food products, including virgin olive oil and virgin coconut oil.
That the Complainant failed to demonstrate why the Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests over the disputed domain name.
That the Complainant’s trademark, VIRGIN, has never had any obvious connections to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
That the mark VIRGIN has no apparent presence in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and that there is no solid reason to confirm that users visiting the web page associated to the disputed domain name would confuse this web page with an official site of the Complainant.
That the Complainant has failed to provide any evidence of having a trademark registration for VIRGIN in the Islamic Republic of Iran in class 29, which is the category where products such as virgin olive oil (intended to be sold by the Respondent) would be classified.
That the disputed domain name was registered 6 years before the Complaint was submitted, proving that there is no intention to register the disputed domain name with the hope of benefiting from the VIRGIN trademark at the time or in the future.
That Tordak Ltd (the company which the Respondent allegedly intends to use to sell food and food-related products) has great brand awareness and reputation in the Islamic Republic of Iran and has been the Respondent’s family business for the past 35 years.
That the disputed domain name was registered as part of the Respondent’s project to promote and sell virgin olive oil in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
That the Respondent’s plan to import and distribute virgin olive oil has since been put on hold. That the Respondent’s interest in trading virgin olive oil through the disputed domain name has never changed, which is why the registration has been kept during this time.
That in 2016, the Respondent expanded his business to the United Kingdom, importing goods which included virgin olive oil, virgin coconut oil and quinoa.
That, regarding the decisions cited by the Complainant, some UDRP decisions in which the Complainant has initiated a proceeding under said Policy have not been favorable to the Complainant.
That the Respondent has invested time and resources in preparations for using the disputed domain name, and that the content of the Respondent’s website will not interfere or benefit from the VIRGIN trademark in any way.
That the absence of active content on the web page to which the disputed domain name resolves is owed to the following reasons:
i. the majority of the consumers in the Islamic Republic of Iran were not familiar with online shopping at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name; and
ii. the processes required for promoting and selling the Respondent’s products by using , including logistics processes, had not been finalized.
That by registering and using the disputed domain name, the Respondent is not directing malicious or exploitative attempts at the Complainant or its trademarks.
That even the Complainant owns several domain names resolving to inactive sites, a fact that demonstrates the Complainant’s awareness of the value of registering potentially relevant domain names before the contents of websites are finalized and published.
That the Complainant has registered domain names that are similar to trademarks belonging to third parties.
That on July 27, 2016, the Respondent received a letter from the Complainant’s representative, concerning the disputed domain name. That the Respondent clarified to said representative that the website that was going to be associated to the disputed domain name was under construction, and would not reference to the Complainant’s trademark.
That in order to address the Complainant’s concern, the Respondent created a simplified version of his web page and made it available before the final version of said page is completed.
That the simplified version of was published on November 9, 2016, before receiving the notification of this Complaint, and the commencement of this administrative proceeding on November 11, 2016.
That the Respondent has legitimate interests in using the disputed domain name, since it is a key asset for conducting his business.
That the Respondent owns 108 domain names, including 50 under the ccTLD “.ir”. That, out of his registered domain names, 82 are directly related to the food industry and in some cases to the disputed domain name.
(c) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
That users reaching for the disputed domain name are not expected to have reached the disputed domain name through their knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark, but that users would be looking for the Respondent’s present or future website.
That the Respondent has never been engaged in the activity of buying and selling the domain names he owns.
That the Respondent has never had any intention to, or interest in registering a domain name to prevent the owner of a trademark from reflecting a trademark on a domain name.
That the Respondent has only registered domain names linked directly to his profession.
That the Respondent has never been interested in selling, renting or transferring the disputed domain name to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant.
That the Respondent has never had any intention or interest in registering a domain name with the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor.
That the Respondent has not registered the disputed domain name in an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the web page to which the disputed domain name resolves, by creating likelihood or confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to any sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement relative to the Respondent’s page.
That the Respondent has demonstrated that the content of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves would not include keywords or elements related to the Complainant’s areas of interest.
That the Complainant has improperly contacted the Respondent with a proposal that was not based on a legitimate business. That the Complainant contacted the Respondent to constitute evidence for purporting the Respondent in a way that is not true. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
The Panel deems it appropriate to cite decisions issued in accordance with the UDRP where appropriate. This is so because the irDRP is based upon, and is a variant of the UDRP, and the present case requires the analysis of matters widely dealt with in UDRP proceedings. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademarks VIRGIN, as it includes them in their entirety.
The addition of the ccTLD “.ir” to the disputed domain name is immaterial for purposes of assessing confusing similarity (see, inter alia, Garmin International v. AliReza Tabibian,WIPO Case No. DIR2016-0026; and Tupras Turkiye Petrol Rafinerileri A.S. v. Hadi Farzad,WIPO Case No. DIR2016-0012).
The arguments of the Respondent regarding the lack of consumer awareness of the trademark VIRGIN in the Islamic Republic of Iran need to be weighed against the fact that the trademark VIRGIN is famous globally, and that it has extensive presence in online media. The Panel notes that the Complainant did not submit evidence showing actual brand recognition of VIRGIN in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to state that the overall exposure to the trademark VIRGIN that currently exists worldwide makes it difficult to discard a risk of the disputed domain name being thought to be associated to the Complainant’s trademarks by Internet users based in the Islamic Republic of Iran. In any event, it is not a requirement under the irDRP for complainants to demonstrate ownership of relevant trademark rights in the jurisdiction in which respondents are based.
The first element of the Policy has been met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In accordance to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy the following examples are circumstances in which the Respondent may have rights to, or legitimate interests in, the disputed domain name:
(i) Before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) The Respondent (as individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) The Respondent is 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 trademark or service mark at issue.
The Complainant claims that its trademarks VIRGIN are famous. The Panel considers such statement as accurate, based on the following:
1. Wide geographical coverage of trademark registrations for VIRGIN;
2. Significant presence in the market and on the media of the economic group to which the Complainant belongs (as well as its services, products, events, and advertisements); and
3. Previous decisions issued under the UDRP which have held that VIRGIN enjoys a wide recognition and renown, and that it has gained significant reputation and presence in the market (see, inter alia, Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Richard Nani, franco Resources plc,WIPO Case No. D2016-0659; Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Guard Whois,WIPO Case No. D2015-2348; and Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Trade Out Investments Ltd/Power Brand Centre Corp.,WIPO Case No. D2011-0640).
The Complainant has declared that to the best of its knowledge, the disputed domain name did not resolve to an active website at the time of submitting the Complaint. According to the Respondent, a simplified version of his website was made available by using the disputed domain name since November 9, 2016. This use was initiated before the Respondent was served with the Complaint on November 11, 2016. However, the Respondent’s website was made available after he received different communications sent by the Complainant expressing some concerns regarding intellectual property matters related to the disputed domain name (these communications were sent since July 27, 2016).
The Policy does not establish a determined period to show use, or preparations to use, a disputed domain name. Hence, a mere period of three days prior to the notification of the Complaint, would be sufficient for a Respondent to invoke paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.
However, in accordance to the arguments and evidence submitted by the parties, the disputed domain name had not been actively used since its registration, six years prior to the beginning of this proceeding, and there are conclusive indicia showing that the use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent, was likely triggered by the above-referred communications exchanged between the parties.
The active use of a domain name, after receiving a letter from a complainant, has previously been considered insufficient to prove rights or legitimate interests, finding that such content probably consists of an attempt by the respondent to justify the registration of the disputed domain name (see Sportingbet Plc, Internet Opportunity Entertainment (Sports) Limited v. Rough Media,WIPO Case No. D2011-0320).
Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy requires demonstrablepreparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The kind of evidence that is sufficient to constitute proof of preparations to use a domain name depend on the particular circumstances of each case (see DigiPoll Ltd. v. Raj Kumar,WIPO Case No. D2004-0939).
Such preparations should, at the very least, be superficial or mechanical (see DigiPoll Ltd. v. Raj Kumar, supra; and Donvand Limited trading as Gullivers Travel Associates v. Gullivers Travel/Gulliver’s Travel Services, Gullivers Travel Agency and Metin Altun/GTA,WIPO Case No. D2004-0741).
The Respondent has provided a series of explanations as to why he did not make an active use of the disputed domain name, none of which were supported by actual evidence submitted with the Response. The Respondent did provide, as Exhibit 10 to the Response, printed communications asking a third party about the acquisition of olives, and discussing some prices thereof. The Panel notes that such evidence only goes as far as demonstrating that the Respondent desired to acquire a certain good, without said acquisition being strictly related to the offering of virgin olive oil or virgin coconut oil.
In Exhibit 3 to the Response, the Respondent offered the official translation of an Exploitation Permit, which confers the right to TORDAK CO. (in which the Respondent was named as the shareholder for 12 shares in 2001) for producing frying powder, cake powder, jelly powder, pastry pancake powder, drinking powder, flour products, ice cream powder, salad powder, baking powder, salad dressings, garlic powder, onion powder, soy protein and grains. However, said list makes no specific mention of virgin olive oil or virgin coconut oil (as claimed by the Respondent).
The evidence provided by the Respondent does not show his alleged intentions to sell and distribute virgin olive oil or virgin coconut oil, or that the companies referred to by the Respondent actually produce and distribute said goods.
This Panel finds it impossible to find, based on the evidence contained in the docket, a real and demonstrable use of the disputed domain name in relation to a bona fide offering of virgin olive oil or virgin coconut oil. The Respondent has not properly backed his allegations, which currently rest solely on his word.
Mere statements related to an intent to use a domain name are unsatisfactory for finding real preparations to use said domain name in connection to a bona fide offering of goods (see Medisite S.A. R.L. v. Intellisolve Limited,WIPO Case No. D2000-0179; Yandex Technologies Ltd (1), Comptek International Ltd (2), Yandex Inc (3) v. Law Bureau of Moscow City Collegium of Advocates,WIPO Case No. D2001-1486; and Société Générale and Fimat International Banque v Lebanon Index/La France DN and Elie Khouri,WIPO Case No. D2002-0760).
The Respondent’s actions do not fall within the hypothesis established in paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.
Furthermore, the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark consist of a dictionary word, meaning unspoiled or untouched. Normally, in order to find rights or legitimate interests in a domain name based on the generic or dictionary meaning of a word or phrase contained therein, the domain name would need to be genuinely used or at least demonstrably intended for such use in connection with the definition of the term, and not trade off third-party rights in such word or phrase (Paragraph 2.2, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”)).
As detailed above, the Respondent did not provide any real proof of use or preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with the supposedly relied-upon meaning. No evidence was submitted to prove that the Respondent traded-off the Complainant’s rights in VIRGIN either.
The parties have provided proof of the Respondent owning several domain names, most of which are comprised of generic or descriptive terms related to the food industry, which could lead to believe that the disputed domain name was in fact intended for use in connection with the meaning claimed by the Respondent.
Nevertheless, the Respondent has also acquired a significant number of domain names which undoubtedly contain third party trademarks, some of which are famous, such as , , , , , , , , , , and . The Respondent did not provide evidence-supported arguments to demonstrate a fair registration over these domain names, and said domain names act as evidence to demonstrate that the Respondent is aware of third parties’ trademarks.
The majority of the domain names owned by the Respondent are certainly descriptive of food, ingredients or preparations (, , , ), while some others stand out as trademarks. Regarding the disputed domain name, even if it includes a dictionary word, it does not specifically describe food, ingredients or preparations. In this Panel’s opinion, if the Respondent intended to sell virgin olive oil or coconut oil, the natural steps taken by the Respondent would probably have been to have chosen a name as descriptive as the ones he had chosen in other cases: , , , , , .
The Respondent’s registration of third party trademarks as domain names, the fame and reputation of the VIRGIN trademark, the existence of the United Kingdom and European trademark registrations for VIRGIN, the existence of a German Company apparently owned by the Respondent’s father since 2011, the Respondent’s ownership of shares in a United Kingdom company, the domain names registered by the Respondent under the ccTLD “.uk”, and the Respondent’s clear familiarity with the Internet and the domain name system, lead the Panel to infer that the Respondent knew of the existence of the trademark VIRGIN at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, and that it is not likely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to sell virgin olive oil, or virgin coconut oil.
As analyzed previously, the Respondent’s alleged use of, or intent to use the disputed domain name took place only after having been notified of the Complainant’s claims.
There is no evidence in the case docket showing that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, or that he has acquired a trademark or service mark rights over the term “VIRGIN”.
The Respondent has not proven to have actual rights or legitimate interests over the disputed domain name.
The second element of the Policy has been met. C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith
According to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be evidence of registration and use in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or the Respondent has acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of his documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or
(ii) the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites or other on-line locations, 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 its website or location.
As previously noted, the Complainant’s trademark VIRGIN has a strong reputation and extensive exposure around the world.
The Complainant claims that the Respondent had knowledge of its VIRGIN trademark at the time of registration. The Respondent did not, either in the communications exchanged with the Complainant before the commencement of this procedure, or in his Response, deny having knowledge of the VIRGIN trademark. There are sufficient elements to presume that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s VIRGIN trademarks at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, just as he knew about other recognized marks such as RALPH LAUREN, REISS, PRIMARK, or the BEATLES.
Paragraph 2 of the Policy sets forth that it is the Respondent’s responsibility to determine whether the domain name registrations infringe or violate someone else’s rights. The obligations imposed by paragraph 2 are an integral part of the Policy, applicable to all registrants, and cannot be ignored (see City Views Limited v. Moniker Privacy Services / Xander, Jeduyu, ALGEBRALIVE,WIPO Case No. D2009-0643; and Aspen Holdings Inc. v. Rick Natsch, Potrero Media Corporation,WIPO Case No. D2009-0776).
Additionally, in accordance with Exhibit 4 to the Response, the Respondent has had presence in Germany since 2011 through his father’s company. He apparently owns shares in a United Kingdom company. The Complainant owns several United Kingdom and European trademark registrations, which predate the year 2011. Accordingly, this Panel considers it safe to assume that the Respondent knew or should have known of the existence of the Complainant and/or its trademarks VIRGIN, at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.
A finding of bad faith may be made where the Respondent knew or should have known of the registration and use of a trademark prior to registering the domain name (see Façonnable SAS v. Names4sale,WIPO Case No. D2001-1365; and The Gap, Inc. v. Deng Youqian,WIPO Case No. D2009-0113).
The record shows that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering domain names that comprise famous trademarks, a pattern of conduct expressly disencouraged by paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy. The Respondent has registered the following domain names: , , , , , , , , , , . Such pattern of conduct, added to the previously detailed findings, has convinced the Panel that the registration of the disputed domain name did not take place in good faith.
Finally, the Panel notes that, contrary to the Respondent’s allegations, the disputed domain name is not key to his purported offering of goods. The Respondent did not provide evidence showing an actual commercialization of virgin olive oil or virgin coconut oil, or that he specifically needs the disputed domain name to sell said products.
On the other hand, the disputed domain name does in fact prevent the Complainant from reflecting its trademark in a corresponding domain name. The present case falls within the premise of paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy.
The third element has been met. 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
Kiyoshi Tsuru
Sole Panelist
Date: December 31, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy