The Complainant is HID Global Corporation of Austin, Texas, United States of America, represented by Cohausz & Florack, Germany.
The Respondent is Ali Amir Aslankhan of Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“the Domain Name”) is registered with IRNIC. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 17, 2017. On January 17, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to IRNIC a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On January 18, 2017, IRNIC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint on January 24, 2017. Hard copies of the Complaint were received by the Center on January 26, 2017.
The Center verified that the Complaint and the amended 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 January 30, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 19, 2017. The Respondent did not file a Response. On February 20, 2017, the Center notified the Respondent’s default.
The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on March 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 sells physical access control products, logical access control solutions, and secure issuance solutions that comprise cards, readers, networked access solutions, card printer/encoders and software. The Complainant or companies in its group own registered trade mark rights in the sign HID GLOBAL including in the Islamic Republic of Iran where the Respondent is based. (See, e.g., international trademark registration number 1293976, HID GLOBAL, registered on January 29, 2016.) The Complainant also has registered trademark rights in the trademark HID, with registration dating from 2000 in a range of jurisdiction, including the European Union. The Complainant owns domain names containing “hid global” including .
The Domain Name was registered on July 15, 2014. The Domain Name resolves to a website in Persian where the HID trade mark of the Complainant in logo form is prominently displayed in the masthead of the web site, and appears to offer the Complainant’s trademarked goods for sale, without the Complainant’s consent. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
The Complainant and its parent company own registered trade mark rights in HID and HID GLOBAL in many countries including the Islamic Republic of Iran where the Respondent is based. The Complainant owns domain names containing “hid global” including .
The Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s mark and domain name for the purposes of the Policy.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent is not authorised to use the Complainant’s trade marks, but offers goods at the Domain Name prominently presenting the protected marks of the Complainant without its consent which is registration and use in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant provides radio frequency identification products and it or companies in its group are the owners of the HID and HID GLOBAL trade marks in a number of countries including in the Islamic Republic of Iran where the Respondent is based.
The Domain Name consists of a name identical to the Complainant’s registered mark HID GLOBAL with the addition of the country code Top-Level Domain “.ir” which is typically disregarded for purposes of comparison under the first element of the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to a mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
It is clear from the content of the site attached to the Domain Name that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant, as the site uses the Complainant’s HID mark in its logo form in the masthead of the web site. There is nothing in the way of a disclaimer that serves to clarify the Respondent’s status as a reseller of the Complainant’s products. The Panel finds this use confusing. It is not clear that the site is not that of the Complainant and not licensed by it. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and has not provided any legitimate reason why the Respondent should be able to use the Complainant’s HID GLOBAL mark in the Domain Name or the Complainant’s HID logo in such a prominent fashion. As such, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. C. Registration or Use in Bad Faith
The content of the Respondent’s web site makes it clear that it was aware of the Complainant’s rights when registering the Domain Name. It seems likely that the use of the Complainant’s logo would cause people to assume the web site at the Domain Name is that of the Complainant or endorsed by it. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site attached to the Domain Name.
As such, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb 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.
Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: March 22, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy