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

Surecom Corporation NV v. PUP, Jonathan Dela Cruz/Whoisguard Protected

Case No. D2013-1980

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Surecom Corporation NV of Willemstad, Curacao, Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by Eidsness Law Offices, United States of America.

The Respondent is PUP, Jonathan Dela Cruz of Bataan, Philippines, and Whoisguard Protected of Panama.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <cam4hot.com> is registered with eNom (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 20, 2013. On November 21, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 22, 2013, the Registrar 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 November 28, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 18, 2013. On December 18, 2013, the Respondent PUP/Jonathan Dela Cruz submitted an informal email communication to the Center. The Respondent did not submit any formal response within the specific response due date. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent the commencement of panel appointment on December 19, 2013.

The Center appointed Tuukka Airaksinen as the sole panelist in this matter on January 6, 2014. 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 the proprietor of the trademark CAM4, registered inter alia as a Community Trade Mark No. 10053701filed on June 16, 2011 and registered on November 16, 2011.. The disputed domain name was created on August 20, 2013.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant operates an adult webcam site under the domain name <cam4.com>, a service for which the trademark CAM4 is used. The website, launched in June 2007, is the 247th most popular website in the world. By the year 2012, over a billion unique visitors had visited the website.

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark CAM4, because it merely adds the generic word “hot”, associated with the Complainant’s services, to the trademark.

The Respondent has no trademark rights and is not known by the disputed domain name and there is no evidence that the Respondent was using or planning to use the disputed domain name in a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its own website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the <cam4.com> domain owned by the Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website. Internet users are very likely to be confused, mistaken or deceived into erroneously believing that Respondent’s website is authorized, sponsored, licensed or endorsed by or otherwise associated with the Complainant, when in fact it is not.

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 consists of the Complainant’s trademark CAM4, and the suffix “hot”. The word “hot” is a generic English word often used in connection with adult entertainment services. The addition of such a generic suffix is not sufficient to avoid confusing similarity with the Complainants trademark.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The consensus view among UDRP panels is that paragraph 4(c) of the Policy shifts the burden to the Respondent to come forward with evidence of a right or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, once the Complainant has made a prima facie showing indicating the absence of such rights or interests. See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0270 and paragraph 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”).

The Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by asserting that it has not authorized the use of the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent is not commonly known by that name. The Respondent has chosen not to reply to these contentions.

Therefore the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Respondent has registered a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and uses it for providing a service competing with the Complainant’s service.

The Panel finds that the Respondent was, or should have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its own website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the <cam4.com> domain name owned by the Complainant and the CAM4 trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was 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 <cam4hot.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Tuukka Airaksinen
Sole Panelist
Date: January 20, 2014

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/