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

Council on International Educational Exchange v. Martin Schola / Petra Novak / CN Exchange

Case No. D2015-2137

1. The Parties

Complainant is Council on International Educational Exchange of Portland, Maine, United States of America, represented by Bernstein Shur, United States of America.

Respondent is Martin Schola / Petra Novak / CN Exchange of Sunnyvale, California, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <consiexchange.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Melbourne IT Ltd (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 24, 2015. On November 25, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 26, 2015, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 2, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 22, 2015. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on December 23, 2015.

The Center appointed Christopher S. Gibson as the sole panelist in this matter on January 4, 2016. 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 is the owner of the trademarks COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE and CIEE, registered in the United States on November 12, 1996 and November 26, 1996, respectively. The marks are used in association with international educational exchange programs. Complainant has used these marks in commerce since and has registered its trademarks internationally.

Complainant owns the domain name <ciee.org>, which was registered on September 21, 1994.

The Domain Name was registered on November 10, 2015.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

(i) Identical or confusingly similar

Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, as it consists of an abbreviation of Complainant’s registered trademarks, COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE and CIEE, with the abbreviation within and as the predominant part of the Domain Name and also found in several places on the “www.consiexchange.com” website. Further, when visiting the site linked to the Domain Name, Respondent uses Complainant’s registered CIEE and COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE trademarks prominently and purports to offer directly competitive services to Complainant. Accordingly, the Domain Name selected by Respondent has already caused confusion and Respondent falsely suggests that it is associated with Complainant. In fact, Complainant and Respondent are in no way related.

(ii) Rights or legitimate interests

Complainant states that it has found no evidence to suggest that Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name or attempted to secure any trademark or other rights related to the Domain Name. The Domain Name was registered on November 10, 2015. This registration occurred long after Complainant began to use of its COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE and CIEE marks, which began in 1947, and after Complainant’s federal trademark registrations were issued in 1996. Complainant claims Respondent had at least constructive notice of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time it registered the Domain Name.

In addition to the foregoing, Complainant states that Respondent has actual notice of Complainant and its trademark rights. Before initiating this action, Respondent was notified of the improper use of Complainant’s federally registered trademarks. Complainant contacted Respondent on November 6, 2015 in association with Respondent’s previous registration of another domain name, <councilieexchange.com>, with this domain name also being used in association with the same confusingly similar website that is linked to the Domain Name. Complainant was also informed that Respondent has been posting what appear to be fraudulent job postings under Complainant’s CIEE and COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE trademarks. Complainant has received several inquiries from individuals confused as to the source of the job postings, as these individuals believe the job postings are associated with Complainant. Complainant previously contacted the Registrar, Melbourne IT, reporting this violation of Complainant’s rights and apparent fraudulent activity. The Registrar responded by deactivating the <councilieexchange.com> domain name on November 9, 2015. The very next day, Respondent registered the Domain Name, re-posted the same website and re-initiated its activities in violation of Complainant’s rights. Complainant sent additional demand letters to Respondent and the Registrar on November 17, 2015, once again demanding that Respondent cease use of Complainant’s trademarks as part of its Domain Name and website, and cease offering fraudulent job postings under Complainant’s marks. A similar letter was sent to the Registrar. Having received no response from either party, Complainant initiated this action.

(iii) Registered and used in bad faith

Complainant states that as discussed above, Respondent had both constructive and actual knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark rights, and knowingly intends to use Complainant’s marks to offer directly competitive services via the Domain Name, as well as to advertise job postings under this Domain Name, apparently in order to fraudulently obtain personal information from individuals who apply for such jobs believing them to be associated with Complainant. This activity, coupled with Respondent’s actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights and confusingly similar domain names, clearly demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith in registering and using the Domain Name.

Complainant contends the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, as it includes Complainant’s registered marks, COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE and CIEE, within and as the predominant part of the Domain Name. COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE and CIEE are distinctive, registered marks used by Complainant to market Complainant’s educational exchange services. The Domain Name selected by the Respondent is likely to cause confusion and suggest that it is associated with Complainant, as are the activities of Respondent as described above. In fact, Complainant and Respondent are in no way related, and it appears that Respondent is purposefully trying to cause confusion, perhaps for the sole purpose of fraudulently obtaining personal information from such individuals.

Complainant states that Respondent’s attempt to use the goodwill and reputation associated with Complainant’s trademarks for its fraudulent activities and/or own directly competitive commercial benefit demonstrates bad faith on the part of Respondent in registering the Domain Name. Complainant has submitted evidence to show that the Domain Name resolves to a website that uses Complainant’s COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE and CIEE trademarks. Respondent has been uncooperative in disabling the Domain Name, choosing to ignore Complainant’s attempts to communicate with Respondent. Respondent has no legitimate basis to maintain the Domain Name and has registered and uses it in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

In order to succeed in its claim, Complainant must demonstrate that the three elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied. These elements are that:

(i) the Domain Name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;

(ii) Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

(iii) Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel must first determine whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant has submitted evidence to show that it owns trademark registrations and has distinctive trademark rights for its marks, COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE and CIEE, in the field of international educational exchange programs. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. The Domain Name <consiexchange.com> contains an abbreviation of Complainant’s marks. Complainant has submitted evidence to indicate that users (e.g., job seekers) have been confused by the Domain Name and the website to which it resolves.

Based on the evidence presented, the Panel determines that Internet users believe there is a real connection between Respondent’s Domain Name and the website to which it is linked, on the one hand, and Complainant and its trademarks, on the other hand. The Panel concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The evidence submitted by Complainant indicates that Respondent has not been commonly known by the Domain Name and does not have any related trademark rights. The Domain Name was registered recently in November 2015, long after Complainant began use of its COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE and CIEE marks. Complainant has demonstrated that Respondent targeted Complainant and its trademark rights. Complainant contacted Respondent on November 6, 2015 in connection with Respondent’s previous registration of another similar domain name, <councilieexchange.com>. That domain name was linked to the same confusingly similar website to which the Domain Name was subsequently linked. Respondent had been posting what appear to be fraudulent job postings on the site. Complainant received several inquiries from individuals confused as to the source of the job postings, as these individuals believed the job postings were associated with Complainant. Complainant previously contacted the Registrar, Melbourne IT, reporting this violation of Complainant’s rights and the apparent fraudulent activity. The Registrar responded by deactivating the <councilieexchange.com> domain name on November 9, 2015. The very next day, Respondent registered the Domain Name, re-posted the same website and re-initiating its activities in violation of Complainant’s rights. This evidence indicates Respondent has used the Domain Name in bad faith for activities that are apparently fraudulent.

Respondent has not submitted a Response and thus, has not replied to Complainant’s contentions. Accordingly, the Panel determines that Respondent lacks any right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel also concludes that Respondent registered and has been using the Domain Name in bad faith. Respondent clearly targeted Complainant and its trademarks when it registered the Domain Name. Respondent linked the Domain Name to a website where Complainant’s trademarks were featured in a manner intended to confuse users, with the purpose of apparently fraudulently obtaining personal information from such individuals.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, satisfying 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 Domain Name, <consiexchange.com>, be cancelled as requested by Complainant.

Christopher Gibson
Sole Panelist
Date: January 30, 2016

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/