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

Genpact Limited v. Genpact Group

Case No. D2013-1776

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Genpact Limited of Hamilton, Bermuda, Oversees Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by Winston & Strawn LLP, United States of America.

The Respondent is Genpact Group of Orangevale, California, United States of America (the “USA”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <genpactgroup.com> is registered with Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 16, 2013. On October 16, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 16, 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 October 25, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was November 14, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 18, 2013.

The Center appointed Alistair Payne as the sole panelist in this matter on November 22, 2013. 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 an established global provider of business process and technology management services and delivers services from 70 centers in 18 countries worldwide. It operates under the GENPACT trade mark and since 2005 has owned numerous registrations for its mark including USA word mark registration No. 78642576. It operates a website at “www.genpact.com” at which it describes its business and service offerings.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 7, 2013.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant submits that it owns registered trade mark rights in GENPACT as noted above and that the disputed domain name wholly incorporates its GENPACT mark and only differs from it by the addition of the generic term “group”. It says that this does not distinguish the disputed domain name from its mark and in addition it has submitted evidence of 4 instances of actual confusion, including circumstances in which job seekers have contacted the Complainant to see whether it and the Respondent were related and also two instances in which the Complainant’s Facebook visitors have been confused as to whether the Complainant and the Respondent were the same company or not. As a result, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its GENPACT trade mark.

The Complainant says that it did not authorize or license the use of its GENPACT mark and that although the Respondent has set up a website with the Genpact Group name on it, based on the Complainant’s research, it can find no evidence that such a company exists. In short the Complainant submits that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for the purposes of a phishing scam in which it confuses people into thinking that it is or has an association with the Complainant and then seeks to hire them to use their personal bank accounts in order to receive transfers of funds which the Complainant alleges amounts to a money laundering scheme. The Complainant has provided evidence of the “job description” and “job application” provided by the Respondent to would-be employees which sets out its requirements and outlines some of this activity and also of a report by one employee to law enforcement authorities in the USA concerning an alleged scam in which she was deceived by the Respondent into making a personal transfer of over USD 5,000.

As a result, the Complainant submits that the Respondent neither has rights nor legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In using the disputed domain name, which was only registered in 2013, many years after the Complainant commenced use, to perpetrate this fraud the Complainant submits that the Respondent has both registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant also says that the inference of bad faith is only reinforced in this case by the Respondent’s failure to respond to its counsel’s cease and desist letter sent in September 2013, except to the extent that the Respondent’s automated system replied with a generic invitation for the Complainant’s counsel to apply for a job processing financial transactions through the Complainant’s personal bank account.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns registered trade mark rights in GENPACT in various countries including in particular in the USA under registration No.78642576 dating from 2005.

The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s GENPACT mark together with the common or generic term “group”. Even without the evidence of confusion as noted above, this Panel finds that the addition of the word “group” does nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from the GENPACT mark. The Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s GENPACT mark and that the Complainant succeeds under the first element of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant submits that it has not authorized the Respondent to use its mark or name and that the Respondent has put up a website at the disputed domain name using the “Genpact Group” name. The Complainant has submitted evidence of various searches that it has undertaken which indicate that the Respondent is not registered as a corporate legal entity and of the Complainant’s search for the Respondent at the address listed on the Respondent’s website, which proved fruitless.

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for the purposes of a phishing scam in which it confuses people into thinking that it is the Complainant, or has an association with the Complainant and then seeks to hire them to use their personal bank accounts in order to receive transfers of funds. Evidence of the manner in which this may take place has been put before the Panel including several examples of people who have been so confused and who have been invited or who have accepted an offer from the Respondent to become an “operations assistant” and to use their personal bank account for the purpose of receiving or transferring funds on the Respondent’s behalf. In one such case the recipient of the Respondent’s job offer was enticed into transferring more than USD 5,000 and the Complainant has submitted an account of events leading to the transfer and of the subsequent complaint that the family made to law enforcement agencies in the USA.

These are very serious allegations and the Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain for a legitimate purpose. In all the circumstances, it certainly appears to this Panel that the Respondent does not operate a bona fide business or trade under a registered corporate structure at the address listed on its website and it would appear on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent has engaged in a phishing scam. In circumstances that the Respondent has not sought to respond to the Complaint and to rebut the case made by the Complainant, or to explain its alleged conduct, the Panel finds that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in relation to a bona fide business activity and has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. As a result, the Panel finds that the Complaint succeeds under the second element of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The disputed domain name which wholly incorporates the Complainant’s GENPACT mark was registered in mid- 2013 at a time when the Complainant’s global business under the GENPACT mark was well established. It seems to the Panel more likely than not that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge and in order to mislead people into thinking that they were dealing with or were applying for employment with an organization that either was or was affiliated with the Complainant in order to lure them into a phishing scheme as described above.

Previous UDRP panels have found that evidence of phishing schemes amounts to registration and use in bad faith, (for example, Banca Mediolanum S.P.A. v. Rita Espsoto/ BlueHost.com -Inc, WIPO Case No. D2010-0966, and the prior cases noted in that decision). In all the circumstances and in particular, considering the false addresses set out on the Respondent’s website, the description of its attempts to employ people as “operations assistants” in order to facilitate funds transfers using their own accounts, the account of one person as noted above who was inveigled into transferring her own funds and of her subsequent complaint to law enforcement authorities and finally the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complainant’s counsel’s cease and desist letter in September 2013, or to explain its conduct in these proceedings, the Panel infers that the Respondent registered and has been using the disputed domain name for the purposes of attracting members of the public to participate in its phishing scheme. This amounts to both registration and use in bad faith and accordingly, the Complaint succeeds under the third element 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 <genpactgroup.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Alistair Payne
Sole Panelist
Date: November 25, 2013

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/