About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Citrix Systems, Inc. v. Catchway Technologies

Case No. D2011-0973

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Citrix Systems, Inc. of Florida, United States of America, represented by Archer & Angel, India.

The Respondent is Catchway Technologies of Andhra Pradesh, India.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <citrixcorporatehouse.com> is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 8, 2011. On June 8, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 9, 2011, Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the 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 27, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 17, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 18, 2011.

The Center appointed Andrew F. Christie as the sole panelist in this matter on July 28, 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 $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 disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on May 10, 2010. It resolves to a parking page website with links to other websites, most of which concern house and/or room rental.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends it is the original, sole and exclusive owner of the brand and trademark CITRIX, and it has been using it since 1989. This 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 through its many websites incorporating the mark CITRIX. The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s CITRIX trademark in its entirety. The Complainant contends that the addition of the words “corporate house” are an attempt by the Respondent to deceive the public, and that it renders the disputed domain name much more confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark CITRIX and services thereof.

The Complainant contends the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name 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 name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a parking page website, (iii) by adding “corporatehouse” to CITRIX in the disputed domain name the Respondent is trying to deceive the public into believing that some association exists between the Complainant and the Respondent and this tarnishes the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant and dilutes the CITRIX trademark, (iv) the Respondent has never been commonly known by the disputed domain name and has never acquired any trademark or service mark rights in the disputed domain name, and (v) the Respondent is making an illegitimate, commercial, unfair use of the disputed domain name with intent for commercial gain as it misleads consumers into believing that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves is somehow associated with the Complainant.

The Complainant contends the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because (i) the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s name or mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location, (ii) the Respondent would have known of the CITRIX trademark when it registered the disputed domain name because it is a well-known, internationally recognized mark registered in numerous countries or geographic regions worldwide, (iii) the Complainant’s rights in the CITRIX trademark pre-date the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name by numerous years, and (iv) the Respondent has acquired the disputed domain name with an ulterior motive to cash in on the goodwill of the Complainant’s CITRIX trademark acquired worldwide, including in India.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name incorporates wholly the Complainant’s registered trademark CITRIX, and adds only the descriptive words “corporate house”. The distinctive aspect of the disputed domain name is the Complainant’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 name with the Complainant’s registered trademark. Accordingly, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is 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, and has not provided any evidence that it has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name 18 years after the Complainant first registered the CITRIX trademark for use in relation to the Complainant’s IT services and products business. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves is a parking page website with links to various other sites, none of which appear to be businesses of the Respondent. According to the present record, the disputed domain name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. Accordingly, this Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

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 name. Moreover, this Panel is persuaded that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name with the intention of attracting Internet users to its website 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 name has been registered and is being 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 <citrixcorporatehouse.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Andrew F. Christie
Sole Panelist
Dated: August 9, 2011

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/