WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Det Berlingske Officin A/S v. BWI Domain Manager
Case No. D2007-1717
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Det Berlingske Officin A/S, KÝbenhavn, Denmark, represented by Chas. Hude A/S, Denmark.
The Respondent is BWI Domain Manager, West Bay, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <jobzonen.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Rebel.com Services Corp.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 21, 2007. On November 22, 2007, the Center transmitted by email to Rebel.com Services Corp a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name at issue. The same day, Rebel.com Services Corp transmitted by email to the Center its verification response, confirming that Respondent was listed as the registrant and providing contact details. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on November 30, 2007. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint and the proceedings commenced on December 3, 2007. The due date for Respondent’s Response was December 23, 2007. Since Respondent failed to submit any response, the Center notified Complainant about Respondent’s default on December 27, 2007.
The Center appointed Bernhard Meyer-Hauser as sole panelist in this matter on January 11, 2008. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel 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
Complainant is the owner of the trademark JOBZONEN since January 1999. Registered in Denmark under No. 1999 00288, the trademark covers classes 16, 35, 41 and 42. These classes include, upon other terms “job offers, job agencies”, “information concerning jobs” and “on-line information”.
The domain name <jobzonen.dk> was registered by Complainant’s licensee Jobzonen A/S in July 1998. According to Complainant, Jobzonen A/S is one of the best known and largest Danish web-based job-agencies today. The mark and domain name JOBZONEN is particularly used on the Internet for job searches, employee searches and as job marketing tool.
5. Parties’ Contentions
Complainant contends that the dominant element in the disputed Domain Name is JOBZONEN. Hence, the Domain Name in dispute is identical, or at least confusingly similar, to the Complainant’s trademark and to the domain name <jobzonen.dk> of Claimant’s licensee. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed Domain Name. The fact that it is highly unusual for a noun to end on “-en” in the English language, makes it unlikely that Respondent invented the disputed Domain Name himself.
Furthermore, several factors suggest that Respondent registered the Domain Name in bad faith. The fact that Respondent designed a website to advertise services related to and in competition with Complainant’s services, thereby using a confusingly similar Domain Name, can only be interpreted as an attempt to misdirect traffic intended for Respondent’s website. In addition, it appears that Respondent is operating under an alias name (Whois ID Theft Protection) in order to escape from complaints being filed against him. Regarding Respondent’s history of registering domain names to prevent trademark owners from reflecting their marks in corresponding domain names, Respondent engages in a clear pattern of illicit behavior, so-called cyber-squatting.
Respondent failed to reply to Complainant’s contentions although Respondent was duly served with the Complaint by the Center.
6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the policy provides that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements in order to succeed in an administrative proceeding:
(i) that the domain name registered by respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
(ii) that the respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in respect of the domain name;
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant provided sufficient evidence for its right in the trademark JOBZONEN.
The Domain Name <jobzonen.com> includes Complainant’s trademark entirely. No distinctive elements are added to the trademark. The fact that the disputed Domain Name is registered as a top level domain name “.com” whereas the domain name of Complainant’s licensee is a country domain, i.e. “.dk”, does not matter. Therefore, the panel holds that the Domain Name in dispute is identical to Complainant’s trademark.
Complainant has established element (i) of paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is in default, not having answered to any of the Complainant’s allegations. Thus, none of the elements set forth by paragraph 4 (c) of the policy or any other arguments which could relieve the Respondent, have been advanced.
The absence of any indication as to the legitimacy of Respondent’s use of the disputed Domain Name, combined with the fact that Complainant registered its JOBZONEN trademark to prevent others from using it for a competing business venture, prompts the Panel to conclude that the prerequisites of paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy have been proven by Complainant.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
According to paragraph 4(a) (iii), Complainant must prove also the elements provided by paragraph 4(b) of the Policy.
On Complainant’s information and belief, Respondent registered the Domain Name <jobzonen.com> in order to disrupt Complainant’s business and to misdirect traffic to Respondent’s own website, offering and advertising competing services in the employment business. Respondent’s use of Complainant’s trademark in the disputed Domain Name confuses Internet users which may wrongly ascribe the services and offers on the website to Complainant’s business. Thus, it seems that Respondent used the Domain Name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his own website.
Furthermore, Respondent’s use of an alias name, shown by Complainant, combined with Respondent’s history of cyber squatting and typo squatting (see, for instance: King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Whois ID Theft Protection, WIPO Case No. D2007-0009; Edmunds.com, Inc. v. Whois ID Theft Protection, WIPO Case No. D2007-0016; Fry’s Electronics, Inc. v. Whois ID Theft Protection, WIPO Case No. D2006-1435; The Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of the University of Cambridge v. Whois ID Theft Protection, WIPO Case No. D2006-1188; Societe des Produits Nestle v. Whois ID Theft Protection, WIPO Case No. D2006-1154; The Hartz Mountain Corporation v. Whois ID Theft Protection, WIPO Case No. D2006-1319; Fifth Third Bancorp v. Whois ID Theft Protection, WIPO Case No. D2006-1209; Sports Holdings, Inc. v. Whois ID Theft Protection, WIPO Case No. D2006-1146; Mannheim Auctions Inc. v. Whois ID Theft Protection, WIPO Case No. D2006-1044; and others) is a clear indication of registration and use in bad faith. Respondent who has been the subject of numerous domain name complaints, obviously is engaged in a pattern of illicit behavior.
For the reasons set out above, the panel holds that Complainant also prevails on the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
For the foregoing reasons, and in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <jobzonen.com> shall be transferred to the Complainant.
Dated: January 23, 2008