Complainant is MIH PayU B.V. of Hoofddorp, Netherlands, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
Respondent is Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) of Burlington, Massachusetts, United States of America ("United States") / Patrik, Payu Capital of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("United Kingdom").
The disputed domain name <payucapital.com> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the "Registrar").
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on March 1, 2018. On March 1, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 2, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on March 5, 2018 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 6, 2018.
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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 8, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 28, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent's default on March 29, 2018.
The Center appointed Lawrence K. Nodine as the sole panelist in this matter on April 6, 2018. 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.
Complainant provides online payment services for merchant and buyers across Asia, Central and Eastern
Europe. It has registered the trademark PAYU with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (e.g., No. 010521128; registered on September 15, 2012), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (No. 5158732; registered on March 14, 2017), and WIPO (No. 1140870; registered on October 10, 2012). Complainant operates online through its website "www.payu.com", and works with more than 300,000 merchants and handles around 2 million transactions daily. Complainant's website received 9.11 million hits in the last six months.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <payucapital.com> on April 22, 2017. The registrant is listed as "Patrik" and the registrant organization is listed as "Payu Capital". The registrant address corresponds to a business center in London, the United Kingdom.
The website to which the disputed domain name resolves is not currently accessible. In the past, the disputed domain name resolved to the website "www.payucapital.com", for a company called Pay U Capital. On the website, Pay U Capital purported to offer "one of the most trusted online payment systems in the world". The offered online services included e-wallet and virtual bank alternatives as well as bank transfers. The address listed on the "contact us" page of the website is the same as the registrant address for the disputed domain name. The address is incomplete, as it is missing a postal code. Moreover, Complainant submits evidence (an email from the property manager) that Pay U Capital is not a tenant of the business center indicated in the registrant address and further indicating that the property manager has no prior knowledge of Respondent.
Complainant sent Respondent several cease and desist letters and emails. An individual named "SanjIT Mukherjee" from "APJ Systems" responded to some of Complainant's cease and desist emails. According to "SanjIT Murkherjee", the disputed domain name includes the word "capital" (absent from Complainant's trademark), which made it freely registrable, and the website "www.payucapital.com" does not "violat[e] [Complainant's] business" because it offers stock broker services and is not a "payment gateway".
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered PAYU mark because the disputed domain name incorporates the entire PAYU mark and merely adds the descriptive term "capital". According to Complainant, the addition of "capital" serves to underscore the confusing similarity because the term is closely linked to Complainant's brand as it invokes financial services.
Complainant alleges that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Complainant has not authorized Respondent's use of the PAYU mark and Respondent is not commonly known as "Pay U Capital" as evidenced by the fact that there is no incorporated business in the United Kingdom by that name and there are no trademark registrations for that name. Complainant states that Respondent uses the disputed domain name in connection with a website that attempts to sell services that directly compete with those of Complainant, which is not, according to Complainant, a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Lastly, Complainant states that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because Complainant has used its PAYU mark in commerce since 2007 (a decade before Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name), and considering the fame of Complainant's mark, Respondent likely knew or at least should have known of Complainant's rights. Complainant also alleges Respondent tried to hide his identity by providing an incorrect address in registering the disputed domain name and on its website. Moreover, Complainant contends that there is evidence of bad faith use because Respondent used the disputed domain name to cause confusion among Internet users seeking Complainant's services for Respondent's own commercial gain.
Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions.
Complainant's trademark registrations establish that it has rights in the PAYU mark. The disputed domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety, and the addition of "capital" does not dispel the confusing similarity or otherwise undermine Complainant's standing to proceed under the Policy.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks and that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Based on the arguments and evidence on record, as set out in sections 4 and 5.A above, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case of Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Thus, the burden of production shifts to Respondent to rebut the prima facie case. Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455. Respondent, however, has failed to respond and offer relevant evidence that indicates a bona fide use.
In fact, the evidence suggests that Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with a website imitating that of Complainant to offer goods and services on the part of a non-existent company. The Panel notes that Respondent has conspicuously failed to come forward with any explanation for the apparent absence of inaccurate contact information on its website.
The Panel finds that Complainant has carried its burden and satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel finds by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent was aware of Complainant's rights in the mark when Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2017. Complainant has offered evidence, which Respondent has not rebutted, that it has used the mark since 2007 and that the mark it is well known in the online financial services industry. Moreover, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the PAYU mark. This finding is supported by Respondent's use of the word "capital"—a word associated with finance—in conjunction with "payu", a relatively distinctive term. Respondent has not offered any good faith explanation for its selection of this term. It is not plausible that Respondent innocently and independently selected the term "payu" without knowledge of Complainant's prior use, and given that Respondent has offered no evidence of its own renown, Respondent's assertion on its website that it is "one of the most trusted online payment systems in the world" supports the finding that Respondent was aware of and indeed meant to mimic Complainant.
Other facts also support a finding of bad faith registration and use. Respondent used a false address (for both the disputed domain name registration and on the website "www.payucapital.com"), and the text of the disputed domain name website flatly contradicts SanjIT Mukherjee's assertion that the website provided stock brokerage services rather than payment services.
The Panel accordingly finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith to attract, for commercial gain, users to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0") section 3.1.4.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
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 <payucapital.com> be transferred to Complainant.
Lawrence K. Nodine
Sole Panelist
Date: April 22, 2018