WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Citrix Systems, Inc. v. Citirx Software Solutions
Case No. D2011-0957
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Citrix Systems, Inc. of Florida, United States of America, represented by Archer & Angel, India.
The Respondent is Citirx Software Solutions of Andhra Pradesh, India.
2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names <citrixcorporatehouse.org> and <citrixsoftwaresolutions.org> are registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 6, 2011. On June 6, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to GoDaddy.com, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On June 7, 2011, GoDaddy.com, Inc. 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 June 14, 2011.
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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 15, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 5, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 6, 2011.
On July 15, 2011, the Center sent an additional communication to the parties. The Respondent was provided with an additional five days in order to indicate to the Center whether it intended to participate in these proceedings. Accordingly, the due date for the submission of any Response, or the indication that the Respondent intends to submit any such Response, was set at July 20, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any Response.
The Center appointed Andrew F. Christie as the sole panelist in this matter on July 27, 2011. 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 a multinational corporation that provides server and desktop virtualization, networking, software-as-a-service and cloud computing technologies for more than 230,000 organizations worldwide. Founded in 1989, the Complainant’s annual revenue in 2010 was USD 1.6 billion. It partners with over 10,000 companies worldwide in more than 100 countries. Its headquarters are in the United States of America and it has subsidiary operations in many countries including India. In India the Complainant operates through two companies, Citrix R & D India Private Limited and Citrix Systems India Private Limited, with offices in Bangalore, Mumbai and New Delhi. The Indian entities employ over 700 employees and are among the fastest growing companies in the IT sector in India.
The Complainant is the proprietor of the brand and trademark CITRIX. The mark has been registered and/or is pending registration in various countries worldwide including, but not limited to, the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the European Union, Australia, India, China and Singapore. The trademark was first registered in the United States of America on May 5, 1992. It was registered in India on August 22, 2001.
The Respondent registered both disputed domain names on June 25, 2010. They currently do not resolve to active websites. The Complainant has provided screenshots from February 18, 2011, which show that the second disputed domain name <citrixsoftwaresolutions.org> then resolved to a website for “Citrix Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd.” which was stated to provide a range of IT-related products and services, and that the first disputed domain name then resolved to a website for “Citrix Corporate House” which was stated to be a sister concern of Citrix Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd that provided intensive training programs.
On February 10, 2011, the Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent in which the Complainant demanded, amongst other things, that the Respondent amend its corporate name by removing the mark CITRIX, and surrender and transfer all domain names registered in the Respondent’s name containing the mark CITRIX. On March 15, 2011, a Director of the Respondent transmitted by email to the Complainant a login ID and username for transfer of the disputed domain name <citrixsoftwaresolutions.org>. These were found to be incorrect and on March 15, 2011, the Complainant requested the correct login ID and password to be provided by the Respondent. On April 4, 2011, the same Director of the Respondent provided a login ID and password to the Complainant which were again found to be incorrect. On April 4, 2011, the Complainant again requested the correct login ID and password from the Director of the Respondent. No further communication was received from the Respondent or any of its Directors.
On March 18, 2011, the Respondent filed a request with the Registrar of Companies in India for changing its corporate name to “AKS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED”, citing as the reason “The Company has received a legal notice from Corporate Group claiming that CITRIX is the trade name of the Group. Hence it si (sic) proposed to change the name of the Company”.
5. Parties’ Contentions
The Complainant contends it is the original, sole and exclusive owner of the brand and trademark CITRIX, which is also the corporate/trading name and trading style of the Complainant who is the registrant of <citrix.com>. The Complainant has incurred vast expenses in promoting its products and services under the mark in various countries through worldwide trademark registrations, enforcement measures, branding, advertising, and its many websites incorporating the mark CITRIX. The disputed domain names contain the Complainant’s CITRIX trademark in its entirety. The Complainant contends that the addition of the words “software solutions” and “corporate house” are an attempt by the Respondent to deceive and entice the public into believing that the services offered by the Respondent are those of the Complainant.
The Complainant contends the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names because (i) the Complainant has never assigned, granted, licensed, sold, transferred or in any way authorized the Respondent to register or use the CITRIX trademark, (ii) the Respondent has never used, or made preparations to use, the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as the Respondent’s services and products are similar and identical to the Complainant’s, (iii) by adding “softwaresolutions” and “corporatehouse” to CITRIX in the disputed domain names the Respondent is trying to deceive the public into believing that some association exists between the Complainant and the Respondent and this is tarnishing the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant and diluting the mark CITRIX, (iv) the Respondent has never been commonly known by the disputed domain names and has never acquired any trademark or service mark rights in the disputed domain names, (v) the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names as it is trying to divert consumers for commercial gain, and (vi) even if the Respondent is “Citirx Software Solutions” and not “Citrix Software Solutions” the Respondent would still not have any legitimate interest because it would not match the name.
The Complainant contends the Respondent is using the disputed domain names in bad faith because (i) it has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website or other on-line location, by creating 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 the Respondent’s website or location, (ii) the Respondent must have known of the Complainant’s mark when it registered the disputed domain names as it is a well-known, internationally recognized mark registered in many countries worldwide, (iii) following the Complainant’s cease and desist letter, the Respondent filed a request with the Registrar of Companies in India for changing/amending its corporate name proving that it accepts the use of the mark CITRIX is in bad faith, and (iv) the Complainant’s rights in the mark pre-date the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names by several years.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names incorporate wholly the Complainant’s registered trademark CITRIX, and add only the descriptive words “corporate house” and “software solutions”, respectively. The distinctive aspect of the disputed domain names is the Complaint’s registered trademark, which is an invented word that does not have a dictionary meaning. The addition of the descriptive words does not lessen the inevitable confusion of the disputed domain names with the Complainant’s registered trademark. Accordingly, this Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not a licensee of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Complainant. The Respondent has not provided any evidence that it has been commonly known by, or has made a bona fide use of, the disputed domain names, or that it has, for any other reason, rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The fact that the Respondent, after notification from the Complainant, applied to change its corporate name to remove the word “citrix” is tantamount to an admission that it has no rights of legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. On the present record, this Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant has conducted a substantial business of international renown for more than two decades under its trademark CITRIX. This Panel is persuaded that the Respondent was likely aware of the Complainant’s trademark when it registered the disputed domain names. Moreover, this Panel is persuaded that the Respondent has used the disputed domain names with the intention of attracting Internet users to its websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website. Pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, this Panel finds that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
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 names <citrixcorporatehouse.org> and <citrixsoftwaresolutions.org> be transferred to the Complainant.
Andrew F. Christie
Dated: August 8, 2011