The Complainant is OLX B.V. of Hoofddorp, Netherlands, represented by Saba & Co. IP, Lebanon.
The Respondent is Mohammad Maddahi of Mashhad, Islamic Republic of Iran (“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 March 16, 2018. On March 19, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to IRNIC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 22, 2018, 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 March 22, 2018.
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 proceeding commenced on March 23, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for response was April 12, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 16, 2018.
The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on April 20, 2018. 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 A. Complainant
The Complainant is a company incorporated in the Netherlands, and the operator in over 50 countries worldwide (including Iran) of one of the leading global online classifieds platforms under the trade mark OLX (the “Trade Mark”) since 2006.
The Complainant is the owner of numerous registrations in jurisdictions worldwide for the Trade Mark, including United States of America registration No. 3626901, registered May 26, 2009; and Iranian registration No. 223026, registered January 5, 2015 (with a filing date of March 16, 2014). B. Respondent
The Respondent is apparently an individual resident in Iran. C. The Disputed Domain Name
The disputed domain name was registered on September 18, 2014. D. The Website at the Disputed Domain Name
The disputed domain name resolves to a website in Persian which provides online classifieds services (the “Website”). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
The Panel respectfully agrees with the views of learned panelists in previous decisions issued under the irDRP that, given the similarities between the irDRP and the UDRP (upon which the irDRP is based), it is appropriate to refer to UDRP jurisprudence, and the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), in applying the irDRP.1 A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration.
The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Trade Mark (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7) together with the word “Iran”.
Where a relevant trade mark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8).
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of non-exhaustive circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name:
(i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent’s 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 an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name even if the respondent has acquired no trade mark 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 trade mark or service mark at issue.
The Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the Trade Mark. The Panel finds on the record that there is therefore a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the burden is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption.
The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the disputed domain name has been used in respect of the Website, which, without the Complainant’s authorisation, makes use of the Trade Mark to provide online classifieds services in direct competition with those provided by the Complainant under the Trade Mark.
There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name; and there has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith
The evidence on record indicates that the Respondent sought to take advantage of the Trade Mark when registering the disputed domain name.
In light of the evidence of the Respondent’s use of the Website in the manner described above, the Panel finds the requisite element of bad faith has been satisfied, under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has been both registered and used in bad faith. 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.
Sebastian M.W. Hughes
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 3, 2018
1 See Inter IKEA Systems BV (IISBV) v. Mohammadreza Mohammadian,WIPO Case No. DIR2018-0003.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy