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

South African National Parks v. Privacy Protect, LLC / Domain Admin, Domain Privacy Guard Sociedad Anónima Ltd

Case No. D2021-1683

1. The Parties

The Complainant is South African National Parks, South Africa, represented by Adams & Adams Attorneys, South Africa.

The Respondent is Privacy Protect, LLC, United States of America / Domain Admin, Domain Privacy Guard Sociedad Anónima Ltd, Panama.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <sanpark.org> 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 June 1, 2021. On June 1, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 2, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 2, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 7, 2021.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 June 10, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 30, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 1, 2021.

The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on July 7, 2021. 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 body corporate registered in South Africa. It is responsible for the management of 22 of South Africa’s national parks including the Kruger National Park.

The Complainant is the proprietor of various trademark registrations for the mark SANPARKS including South Africa trademarks sequentially numbered 2004/12407 to 2004/12412 inclusive for the word mark SANPARKS, registered on September 4, 2008, respectively, in International Classes 16, 35, 39, 41, 42, and 43.

The Complainant registered the domain name <sanparks.org> on August 4, 2003 and has operated a website at “www.sanparks.org” since 2004.

The disputed domain name, <sanpark.org>, was registered on November 7, 2005.

According to evidence submitted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name has resolved to a website at “www.sanpark.org”. The website includes references to South African national parks including the Kruger National Park and also includes what appear to be pay-per-click (“PPC”) links to leisure-related services including hotel booking services.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant states that it is responsible for the conservation of South Africa’s biodiversity, landscapes and associated heritage assets through a system of national parks. It traces its history back to 1928 and states that it has used the acronym SANPARKS since 1998. It exhibits evidence of its history and use of that name and mark. The Complainant submits that it has extensively promoted its SANPARKS mark, including by way of social media and has over 235,000 Facebook “likes”, over 124,000 followers on Instagram and over 94,000 on Twitter. The Complainant states that the national parks it operates had over 3.4 million visitors in 2004/05, being the financial the year in which the disputed domain name was registered, and that the Complainant has acquired substantial reputation and goodwill in the SANPARKS name and trademark.

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name, <sanpark.org>, is confusingly similar to its trademark SANPARKS, being identical to that trademark but for the omission of the second letter “s”.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It states that it has never licensed or authorized the Respondent to use its SANPARKS trademark, that the Respondent has not been known by that name and that the Respondent is making neither bona fide commercial use nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Instead, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered a domain name which is confusingly similar to its SANPARKS trademark and its <sanparks.org> domain name, and has used the same for the purpose of a website which includes misleading references to the Kruger National Park as well as PPC links.

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. It contends that the Respondent was clearly aware of its SANPARKS trademark and <sanparks.org> domain name as the disputed domain name is obviously intended to mimic those assets. It adds that the references to the Kruger National Park on the Respondent’s website are also deliberately intended to call the Complainant to mind.

The Complainant states that it is not connected with, and has no control over, the operators of the websites to whom the Respondent’s website links. Therefore, not only is the Complainant suffering a diversion of Internet traffic to the Respondent’s website, but it is also at risk of reputational damage should those links prove not to be legitimate.

The Complainant submits in summary that the Respondent is using the deliberately confusing disputed domain name in a manner which further misrepresents a connection between the Complainant and the Respondent’s website and that the Respondent is intentionally taking unfair advantage of that confusion to benefit financially from PPC links.

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are:

(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established to the satisfaction of the Panel that it has registered trademark rights in the mark SANPARKS as a result of its 2008 registrations, as well as unregistered rights in that mark dating back to approximately 1998. The disputed domain name, <sanpark.org>, is identical to the Complainant’s trademark but for the omission of the final letter “s”, which omission does not prevent the Complainant’s trademark from being recognizable within the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

In the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions set out above give rise to a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not filed a Response in this proceeding and has not submitted any explanation for the registration and use of the disputed domain name, or evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, whether in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds the Complainant’s trademark SANPARKS to be distinctive in nature and infers from the Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name that it was aware of both the Complainant’s trademark and its <sanparks.org> domain name at the date the disputed domain name was registered. The Respondent’s references on its website to the Kruger National Park provide further evidence of the Respondent’s intention to misrepresent a connection between itself and the Complainant and the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is inherently misleading and constitutes an impersonation of the Complainant.

The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submissions that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for the purpose of a website which is intended to mislead Internet users into believing it is connected with the Complainant, by use both of the inherently misleading disputed domain name and by the inclusion on that website of references to the Kruger National Park managed by the Complainant. The Panel infers that the Respondent then seeks to benefit from such confusion by obtaining revenue from the PPC links on its website.

The Panel concludes therefore that, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of a product or service on its website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).

The Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used 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, <sanpark.org>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: July 21, 2021

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/