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. Suteria, Kassim

Case No. D2014-1282

1. The Parties

Complainant is OLX, Inc., New York, New York, United States of America, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.

Respondent is Suteria, Kassim, Texas, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <olxlxrh.com> is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 25, 2014. On July 25, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 25, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 31, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 20, 2014. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on August 21, 2014.

The Center appointed Lynda J. Zadra-Symes as the sole panelist in this matter on August 29, 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

Complainant operates online classified sites, including at “www.olx.com”, that enable users to (a) buy and sell goods, including vehicles, real estate, tickets and electronics, (b) solicit and offer services, such as babysitting, event services and repairs, (c) design ads to post on the OLX website, (d) display ads on profiles across social networking sites, such as Facebook, and (e) search for jobs across numerous locations and industries.

Complainant is the owner of several registered trademarks for the mark OLX, including the following:

United States Trademark Registration No. 3295467, registered September 18, 2007, for the mark OLX (stylized) and United States Trademark Registration No. 3626901, registered May 26, 2009, for the mark OLX for use in connection with services including online advertising services for others on the Internet and providing online databases featuring advertisements.

Community Trade Mark Registration No. 007225717, registered August 7, 2009, for the mark OLX for use in connection with advertising, business management, business administration and office functions.

Complainant has also registered domain names incorporating the OLX trademark in numerous countries.

On July 15, 2014, Complainant’s representative sent a letter to Respondent asserting infringement of Complainant’s trademark and demanding transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant.

Respondent did not reply to this letter.

The disputed domain name was registered on June 11, 2014.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant submits that its mark is well-known in the United States of America and internationally, that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademarks, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s trademark in its entirety and adds the letters “lxrh”. The addition of a these apparently random letters does not add any distinguishing element and is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark.

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

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Based on previous UDRP decisions, “a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such a prima facie case is made, the burden shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such appropriate allegations or evidence, a complainant is generally deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP”. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 2.1.

Complainant’s allegations in the Complaint and evidence submitted on this issue are sufficient to make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Complainant’s asserted United States trademark Registrations issued prior to the registration of the disputed domain name and are prima facie evidence of the validity of the marks, the registration of the marks, the owner’s ownership of the marks, and of the owner’s exclusive right to use the registered marks in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the certificate. 15 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) Section 1057(b). The registrations also constitute constructive notice of Complainant’s claim of ownership of the marks as of the date of registration. 15 U.S.C. Section 1072.

Respondent has no relationship with Complainant and has no permission from Complainant to use Complainant’s OLX trademark or any domain name incorporating that trademark. There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or had used or demonstrated preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

The disputed domain name resolves to a page entitled “Ranking” and displays links listing numerous well-known trademarks of third parties, including trademarks such as HONDA, HARLEY, FISCHER, KENMORE, BARBIE, WARNER BROTHERS, SAMSUNG, OLD NAVY, HELLO KITTY, CALLAWAY, and many others. The links resolve to pages displaying the products of the third party companies, but does not provide the ability for the end user to purchase those products. Respondent’s website does not appear to be operated in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Complainant submits that it did not find any registered trademarks or trade names of Respondent corresponding to the disputed domain name. There is nothing in the record indicating that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. There is no reference in the text of Respondent’s website to the domain name “olxlxhr” as a company name or trademark. No information is provided on the website regarding the company operating the website. The “about us” link on the website homepage is inoperative and does not link to any information.

The Panel finds that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Whether a domain name is registered and used in bad faith for purposes of the Policy may be determined by evaluating four (non-exhaustive) factors set forth in the Policy: (i) circumstances indicating that the registrant has registered or 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 trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the registrant’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the registrant has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the registrant has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the registrant’s 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 registrant’s website or location or of a product or service on the registrant’s website or location. (Policy, paragraph 4(b)).

The factors delineated in the Policy, paragraph 4(b), as supporting bad faith registration and use are “without limitation”.

Complainant’s United States Trademark Registrations were registered several years prior to Respondents’ registration of the disputed domain name in June 2014. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety, resolves to a website listing numerous well known third party trademarks and is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent appears to be using the disputed domain name to attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location. In addition, Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in this manner indicates that it is likely that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name 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, <olxlxrh.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Lynda J. Zadra-Symes
Sole Panelist
Date: September 12, 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/