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

International Business Machines Corporation v. Rajiv Jain, R&R Bikes

Case No. D2018-2019

1. The Parties

The Complainant is International Business Machines Corporation of Armonk, New York, United States of America (“United States”), internally represented.

The Respondent is Rajiv Jain, R&R Bikes of Ludhiana, Punjab, India.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name, <ibm-usa.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 September 4, 2018. On September 5, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On September 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 September 10, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 30, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 1, 2018.

The Center appointed Tony Willoughby as the sole panelist in this matter on October 11, 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 United States corporation whose business was founded in the latter part of the 19th century. It adopted its current name in 1924 and is best known under the acronym “IBM” which it has registered as a trade mark throughout the world. One such registration is United States Registration No. 1,058,803 registered on February 15, 1977 for a wide variety of goods and services in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 16, 28, 37, 41 and 42, many of them being computer-related goods and services, the Complainant’s core business area.

The Domain Name was registered on December 22, 2011. The Domain Name is connected to a pay‑per‑click webpage featuring advertising links such as “IBM SERVER” and “IBM CLOUD” and listing the Domain Name for sale.

On May 10, 2018, the Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent drawing the Respondent’s attention to the Complainant’s trade mark rights and seeking, inter alia,transfer of the Domain Name.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s IBM trade mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Domain Name has been 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 features the Complainant’s IBM trade mark in its entirety and, as such, is confusingly similar to that trade mark for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant asserts that it has no connection with the Respondent and has never authorized the Respondent to use its IBM trade mark for this or any other purpose. The Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the Domain Name. The Complainant contends that the nature of the pay-per-click links on the Respondent’s website is such that it is clear that the Respondent is targeting the Complainant and is doing so for commercial gain in the form of pay-per-click revenue. The Complainant contends that such use cannot give rise to any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in the hands of the Respondent.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case under this element of the Policy, a case calling for an answer from the Respondent. The Respondent has not responded to the Complainant’s contentions and the Panel can conceive of no legitimate use that the Respondent can make of the Domain Name. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

In the view of the Panel, the nature of the Domain Name and the use to which it is being put bear out the Complainant’s contention that the Respondent registered the Domain Name with the Complainant’s trade mark in mind and with a view to deriving commercial gain by way of pay-per-click revenue stemming from visitors attracted to the Respondent’s website through the Respondent’s unauthorized use of the Complainant’s IBM trade mark.

The Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) 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, <ibm-usa.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Tony Willoughby
Sole Panelist
Date: October 13, 2018

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/