The Complainants are Mercado Libre, Inc., Argentina, Mercado Libre SRL, Argentina, Mercado Libre Chile, Ltda., Chile, Mercado Libre, S. de R. L. C.V., Mexico, Mercado Libre Venezuela, S.R.L., Venezuela, Ebazar.com.br, Ltda., Brasil, Tech Fund, S.R.L., Uruguay, represented by Marval O´Farrell & Mairal, Argentina1 (individually and collectively referred to as the “Complainants”).
The Respondent is Perfect Privacy, LLC, United States of America / Milen Radumilo, Romania. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 31, 2021. On May 31, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 31, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainants on June 1, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainants to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainants filed an amended Complaint on June 5, 2021. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 15, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 5, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 7, 2021. The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on July 23, 2021. 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 Complainants operate a large e-commerce ecosystem in Latin America, used to advertise, sell, buy, pay for, and send goods and services over the Internet (using for this purpose different domain names, including The Complainants contend that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainants’ registered trademarks; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the disputed domain name, the Complainants must prove each of the following, namely, that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights; and The Complainants have brought a single consolidated Complaint against the Respondent and have requested that consolidation be granted since it meets the criteria set forth in prior UDRP decisions and in section 4.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). UDRP panels have articulated principles governing the question of whether a complaint filed by multiple complainants may be brought against one or more respondents. These criteria encompass situations in which: (i) the complainants either have a specific common grievance against the respondent, or the respondent has engaged in common conduct that has affected the complainants’ individual rights in a similar fashion; and (ii) it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation. The burden of showing that consolidation is proper falls on the Complainants. The Complainants have provided sufficient evidence to support consolidating them. The Complainants have a common grievance against the Respondent because they share a common legal interest in the trademark rights on which this Complaint is based as a result of their affiliation with the same corporate group. All the Complainants own registrations for the trademark MERCADO LIBRE in different Latin American countries (with the exception of Brazil, where the registered mark is MERCADO LIVRE). Because of the similarity of the issues raised concerning the disputed domain name, consolidation of the Complainants would be equitable and procedurally efficient. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainants undoubtedly have rights in the MERCADO LIBRE mark, as evidenced by the many trademark registrations. The disputed domain name is identical to the MERCADO LIBRE mark. It contains the mark in its entirety. Accordingly, the Panel finds in favor of the Complainants on this first element. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests A complainant succeeds under this element if it makes a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that prima facie showing remains unrebutted by the Respondent. The Complainants in this case assert that: - The Complainants have not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the trademark MERCADO LIBRE, or to register any domain name incorporating that trademark. These assertions establish the Complainants’ prima facie case. The Respondent has not substantively answered the Complainants’ assertions, and, seeing no basis in the record to overcome the Complainants’ prima facie showing, the Panel finds that the Complainants have satisfied this second element. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Because the MERCADO LIBRE is so well known, it is implausible to believe that the Respondent was not aware of it when it registered the disputed domain name. In the circumstances of this case, the mere registration of a domain name that is identical to a well-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith registration of the disputed domain name. Bad faith use is shown from the Respondent’s activities of using the disputed domain name to present sponsored links for commercial gain. For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainants have successfully met this third element. 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 Evan D. Brown 1 This action has been consolidated to consider the claims of each of these Complainants based on, among other things, their common interest in the dispute. See Section 6.A. below.
(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 and is being used in bad faith. A. Consolidation of Multiple Complainants
- The Complainants have no business relationship that would give rise to any license, permission or other authorization on the part of the Respondent to use the disputed domain name.
- There is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
- The Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, since the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for a parking page containing sponsored links, many of which redirect to websites offering competing services to those of the Complainants.
Sole Panelist
Date: August 6, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy