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

OLX B.V. v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org / Rana Mohi UD Din, Fast Online Job

Case No. D2015-1886

1. The Parties

The Complainant is OLX B.V. of Hoofddorp, Netherlands, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org of Nobby Beach, Australia / Rana Mohi UD Din, Fast Online Job of Lahore, Pakistan.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <olxadpost.com> (the "Domain Name") is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on October 22, 2015. On October 22, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On October 23, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 27, 2015 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on October 27, 2015.

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 November 2, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 22, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on November 23, 2015.

The Center appointed Nicholas Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on December 11, 2015. 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 company based in the Netherlands and founded in 2006. The Complainant operates a series of online classifieds sites that enable users to buy and sell goods and solicit and offer services. Together with its affiliated company OLX Inc., the Complainant has registered over 1,000 domain names incorporating "OLX" in various countries around the world. The Complainant presently offers its services in 40 countries and 50 languages. The Complainant's platform has over 200 million monthly unique users generating traffic of over 11 billion monthly page views, or around 360 million page views per day.

The Complainant is the owner of a trade mark comprising the letters "OLX" (the "OLX Mark"), in jurisdictions across the world, including Switzerland, Germany, the European Union and Pakistan, the location of the Respondent. The OLX Mark was first registered in 2007. The Complainant on its websites also uses a logo (the "OLX Logo") that consists of the letters "OLX" in purple, green and orange and in a particular font.

The Domain Name <olxadpost.com> was registered on January 31, 2014. The Domain Name resolves to a website (the "Respondent's Website") with the title "Olx Ad Posting Jobs. Most Reliable Company Providing Online Jobs & Home Business Through Out Pakistan" and appears to offer marketing services and home business services and in particular the opportunity for Internet users to type out advertisements for placement on online directories, forums and other classified advertisement sites. When the Respondent's Website is opened on a tabbed browser, the OLX Logo appears as part of the tab.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant makes the following contentions:

(i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's OLX Mark;

(ii) that the Respondent has no rights nor any legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Complainant is the owner of the OLX Mark. It owns trade mark registrations for the OLX Mark in various countries around the world. The Domain Name consists of the OLX Mark and the suffixes "ad" and "post" thereby making the Domain Name confusingly similar to the OLX Mark as the additional terms are closely linked and associated with the Complainant's services.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent does not hold a trade mark for "OLX" or any similar trade mark nor has it received any authorization to use the Domain Name. The Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate, noncommercial fair use of the Domain Name. The Domain Name is currently connected to a website that displays the Complainant's OLX Logo in its title as a direct effort to take advantage of the fame and goodwill that the Complainant has built in its brand. The Respondent is using the confusingly similar Domain Name to mislead the Complainant's customers which is not making a bona fide offering of goods and services.

The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith by registering the Domain Name while being aware of the Complainant's rights and then using the Domain Name for financial gain. The Domain Name is currently connected to a website that reproduces the Complaint's Logo, adds terms that refer to the Complainant's services and offers services that are strikingly similar to those offered by the Complainant. Consequently, the Respondent is using the Domain Name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights and the Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade or service mark.

The Complainant is the owner of the OLX Mark, having registrations for OLX as a trade mark in the numerous countries around the world, including Pakistan.

The Domain Name consists of the OLX Mark and the suffixes "ad" and "post". The presence of the suffixes "ad" and "post", both of which are descriptive of the services offered by the Complainant under the OLX Mark, does not distinguish the Domain Name from the OLX Mark. In addition to that, an individual viewing the Domain Name may be confused into thinking that the Domain Name would refer to a site run by the Complainant, offering its services. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's OLX Mark. Consequently, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

To succeed on this element, a complainant must make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If such a prima facie case is made out, then the burden of production shifts to the respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy enumerates several ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name:

"Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii):

(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) you are making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue." (Policy, paragraph 4(c))".

The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way. It has not been authorized by the Complainant to register or use the Domain Name or to seek the registration of any domain name incorporating the OLX Mark or a mark similar to the OLX Mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name or any similar name. There is no evidence that the Respondent has used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

The Respondent currently uses the Domain Name to operate a website that advertises the Respondent's services, which include advertising related services and services for the placement of advertisements on various online sites, potentially including sites operated by the Complainant. In essence the Respondent is using the Domain Name to operate a website that, without the permission of the Complainant, offers services that relate to the Complainant's services using both the OLX Mark and the OLX Logo, potentially masquerading as the Complainant. Such use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services.

The Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent has had an opportunity to rebut the presumption that it lacks rights or legitimate interests but has chosen not to do so. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

For the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trade mark or service mark or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or

(ii) the Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) the Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the Domain Name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of 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.

The Panel finds that the Respondent at the time of registration of the Domain Name knew of the existence of Complainant. The Domain Name resolves to a website that displays the OLX Logo and OLX Mark and advertises services that are, at the minimum, complementary and related to the services offered by the Complainant under the OLX Mark.

The Respondent's conduct in registering the Domain Name when it was aware of the Complainant's rights and lacked rights and legitimate interests of its own amounts to registration in bad faith.

The Respondent has used the Domain Name for the purposes of operating a website to advertise its marketing services and home business services and in particular the opportunity for Internet users to type out advertisements for placement on online directories, forums and other classified advertisement sites. There is no obvious explanation available, and none provided, for the Respondent's use of the OLX Mark and OLX Logo in the Domain Name and the Respondent's Website other than with the intention to capture Internet traffic from Internet users who are looking for the Complainant's services. The Domain Name and the content of the Respondent's Website are calculated to confuse Internet users into thinking that the Respondent is somehow connected with the Complainant, when this is not the case. The Respondent, by using the Domain Name, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's 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.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

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 <olxadpost.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Nicholas Smith
Sole Panelist
Date: December 14, 2015

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/