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


Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. v. James

Case No. D2018-0009

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. of Chicago, Illinois, United States of America (“United States”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is James of Famagusta, Turkey.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name, <eujil.com> (the “Domain Name”), is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 5, 2018. On January 5, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On January 6, 2018, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 15, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 4, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 5, 2018.

The Center appointed Tony Willoughby as the sole panelist in this matter on February 13, 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a professional services and investment management firm specializing in real estate. It trades under its acronym “JLL” and has numerous trade mark registrations of the mark JLL around the world including, by way of example, United States registration no. 4564654 registered July 8, 2014, application filed April 5, 2012, JLL (standard characters) for a wide variety of services in classes 35, 36, 37 and 42.

The Complainant is also the owner of several domain names featuring the letters “jll”, two of those domain names being <jll.com> (registered in 1998) <jll.eu> (registered in 2006).

The Domain Name was registered on December 12, 2017.

On the same day, December 12, 2017, a director of the Complainant with an email address “[xxx]@eu.jll.com” received a personal email from “do-not-reply@eujil.com” inviting the recipient to click on a link authorizing “[xxx]@eujil.com” to send emails as “[xxx]@eu.jll.com”, thereby enabling the Respondent to send emails purporting to come from the Complainant’s director. The Complainant reported the matter to the Registrar and the website was closed down. At the time of this Decision, the Domain Name did not resolve to an active website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s JLL trade mark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. General

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:

(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights: and

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

(iii) The Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name comprises the letters “jil” preceded by the letters “eu” and followed by the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) identifier. The letters “eu” are a common abbreviation for “Europe” or “European Union”. “jil” is very similar to and easily mistakable for “jll”. Where, as here, the gTLD is serving no function other than a purely technical one, it may be ignored for the purposes of this assessment under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Accordingly, the comparison is between “eujil” and JLL.

On a straightforward comparison there is scope for argument as to the level of similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s JLL trade mark. If, however it is permissible for the Panel to take into account the manner in which the Domain Name has been used (see Section 4 above), the balance tilts firmly in favour of a finding of confusing similarity.

The Panel obtains guidance from Section 1.15 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“Overview 3.0”) which deals with the question: “Is the content of the website associated with a domain name relevant in determining identity or confusing similarity?” This question could also have been asked more broadly along the lines of “Is the use that the Respondent has made of a domain name relevant in determining identity or confusing similarity?”

Section 1.15 of Overview 3.0 answers the question as follows:

“The content of the website associated with the domain name is usually disregarded by panels when assessing confusing similarity under the first element. In some instances, panels have however taken note of the content of the website associated with a domain name to confirm confusing similarity whereby it appears prima facie that the respondent seeks to target a trademark through the disputed domain name. Such content will often also bear on assessment of the second and third elements, namely whether there may be legitimate co-existence or fair use, or an intent to create user confusion.”

In this case the Domain Name has not been used for connection to a website, but for email purposes and there can be no doubt whatever from the manner in which the Domain Name has been used that the Respondent has been seeking “to target [the Complainant’s] trade mark through the disputed domain name.” (See section 4 above).

Clearly, the Respondent regarded the Domain Name as sufficiently confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark to achieve his objective, namely to deceive.

The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests and Registered and Used in Bad Faith

These two elements of the Policy can sensibly be taken as one. The Respondent registered the Domain Name for the purpose for which he used it, namely to deceive. He registered the Domain Name on December 12, 2017 and set out to deceive by way of an email to a director of the Complainant on the very same day. On no basis could he be said to have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Plainly he registered the Domain Name in bad faith and used it in bad faith.

The Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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, <eujil.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Tony Willoughby
Sole Panelist
Date: February 18, 2017