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, Inc. v. Asghar Shaikh, Online Education Services

Case No. D2014-1279

1. The Parties

The Complainant is OLX, Inc., New York, New York, United States of America (“USA”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Asghar Shaikh, Online Education Services, Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <olx-pakistan.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 25, 2014. The Center transmitted its request for registrar verification to the Registrar on July 25, 2014. The Registrar replied on July 25, 2014, confirming that it was in receipt of the Complaint, that the Domain Name was registered with it, that the Respondent was the registrant, that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”) applied, that the Domain Name would expire on April 28, 2015, that it would remained locked during this proceeding, that the registration agreement was in English, and that the Domain Name was registered to the Respondent on March 15, 2013. The Registrar also provided the full contact details held on its WhoIs database in respect of the Domain Name.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the 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 paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a) of the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 30, 2014. In accordance with paragraph 5(a) of the Rules, the due date for Response was August 19, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 20, 2014.

The Center appointed Jonathan Turner as the sole panelist in this matter on August 26, 2014. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with paragraph 7 of the Rules.

Having reviewed the file, the Panel is satisfied that the Complaint complied with applicable formal requirements, was duly notified to the Respondent and has been submitted to a properly constituted Panel in accordance with the UDRP, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant operates websites for classified advertisements, enabling users to buy and sell goods, including vehicles, real estate, tickets, and electronics; to solicit and offer services, such as babysitting, event services, and repairs; to design advertisements for posting on the Complainant’s websites; to display ads on profiles across social networking sites, such as Facebook; and to search for jobs.

The Complainant was founded in 2006 and is now one of the world’s leading free online platforms for classified advertisements. Its service is used in over 107 countries and is available in over 42 languages. It is the top online platform for classified advertisements in India, Brazil, and several other countries.

The Complainant maintains offices in Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo, Delhi, Lisbon, and New York, and operates subsidiaries in Pakistan, Argentina, and China. The Complainant’s websites receive more than 100 million monthly unique users, generating over 1.8 billion monthly page views.

The Complainant’s websites are located at addresses such as “www.olx.com”, “www.olx.co.uk”, “www.olx.in” and “www.olx.mx”, and it has registered numerous domain names containing “olx”. The websites are prominently branded “OLX” and the Complainant has registered “OLX” word and logo marks in the USA, as well as OLX logo marks in the EU and Mexico. There registrations include Community Trademark No. 4883741 for a logo of “OLX” pursuant to an application filed on February 6, 2006.

The Domain Name was originally registered on April 28, 2012, and was subsequently re-registered and directed by the Respondent to a website apparently presenting classified advertisements in a format copied from a website of the Complainant, and including the Complainant’s name and logo “OLX PAKISTAN” in the upper banner, as well as sponsored links as appears from annex 11 to the Complaint. The Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent requesting voluntary transfer of the Domain Name. This was followed by a telephone conversation between the Complainant and the Respondent, but the Respondent did not comply with the Complainant’s request to transfer the Domain Name. The Complainant notified the Internet Service Provider hosting the Respondent’s website, which suspended the account and took down the website in July 2014.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark OLX in which it has rights. The Complainant points out that the addition of the geographic term “Pakistan” does not distinguish the Domain Name from its mark.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainant states that the Respondent does not have any corresponding trademark rights and has not used “OLX” in a way that would confer any legitimate rights. The Complainant observes that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and confirms that it has not licensed or authorized the Respondent to use the “OLX” mark. The Complainant draws attention to the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name for a website which did not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, but rather was a fraudulent attempt to pass off.

The Complainant alleges that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant points out that the Respondent must have known of the Complainant’s business since he copied it and the Complainant’s logo. The Complainant contends that the Respondent used the Domain Name intentionally to attract Internet users to his website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of that website. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name disrupted its own business.

The Complainant requests a decision that the Domain Name be transferred to it.

B. Respondent

As stated above, the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove: (i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. It is appropriate to consider each of these requirements in turn.

In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from the Respondent’s default as it considers appropriate. This includes the acceptance of plausible evidence of the Complainant which has not been disputed.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds on the evidence that the Complainant has registered and unregistered rights in the mark OLX.

The Panel further finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to this mark. The addition of the word “Pakistan” with a hyphen separator in no way distinguishes the Domain Name from the mark, since many Internet users would regard the Domain Name as referring to an activity of the Complainant relating to Pakistan.

The first requirement of the UDRP is satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel considers that the use made of the Domain Name by the Respondent prior to the taking down of the website was not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but rather was a dishonest attempt to gain a commercial advantage by deceiving Internet users into believing that this website was operated by the Complainant or one of its affiliates.

It is also evident that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, and the Panel accepts the Complainant’s statement that it has not licensed or authorized the Respondent to use its OLX mark.

On the material in the file, there is no other basis on which the Respondent could claim any right or legitimate interest in respect of the Domain Name. The Panel accordingly finds that the Respondent has no such right or interest. The second requirement of the UDRP is satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds on the evidence that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to his website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, affiliation or endorsement of this website. In accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP this constitutes evidence that the Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.

There is no evidence displacing this presumption. On the contrary, it is clear from the material in the file that the Respondent has acted in bad faith. The third requirement of the UDRP is satisfied.

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 Domain Name, <olx-pakistan.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Jonathan Turner
Sole Panelist
Date: September 8, 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/