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

The Computing Technology Industry Association, Inc. d/b/a CompTIA, Inc. v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy / Jerry Jerry

Case No. D2021-1785

1. The Parties

The Complainant is The Computing Technology Industry Association, Inc. d/b/a CompTIA, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, United States.

The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy, Iceland / Jerry Jerry, Australia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <passcomptia.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 7, 2021. On June 7, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 7, 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 18, 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 23, 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 30, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 20, 2021. On June 16, 2021, the Respondent sent an email to the Center. Further, on July 15, 2021, the Respondent sent an email to the Center requesting for an extension to submit a Response. Subsequently, the due date to submit a Response was extended to July 24, 2021, pursuant to paragraph 5(b) of the Rules. The Respondent did not submit any formal response. On August 11, 2021, the Center informed the Parties that it will commence the panel appointment process.

The Center appointed Knud Wallberg as the sole panelist in this matter on August 26, 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 has provided IT-related education, training, and professional certificates to the public since 1993, and its services have achieved widespread recognition within the IT industry and notable international publications.

The Complainant owns a number of registrations for the COMPTIA trademark, including United States registration No. 1,964,708 filed on August 5, 1994, and registered on March 26, 1996 for association services in International Class 42.

The Complainant also owns the domain name <comptia.org> which resolves to the Complainant’s official website.

The disputed domain name was registered on July 9, 2018.

As evidenced in the Complaint, the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, is a website that purports to offer services in relation to the various certification exams that are offered by the Complainant. The website displays the Complainant’s mark and logotype, and also contains banner advertisements.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its COMPTIA mark because it reproduces the mark in its entirety and that the addition of the term “pass” is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from the COMPTIA trademark.

The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is neither affiliated with, nor has it been licensed or permitted to use the Complainant’s COMPTIA mark or any domain names incorporating the COMPTIA mark. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name. Also, the Complainant submits that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, but rather is attempting to pass itself off as the Complainant and purports to offer the Complainant’s certification services by imitating the Complainant’s websites and copyrighted content without authorization.

The Complainant finally alleges that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant thus contends that given the Complainant’s worldwide reputation and the presence of its COMPTIA marks on the Internet, the Respondent was or should have been aware of the COMPTIA Marks long prior to registering the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to mislead Internet users who are searching for the Complainant’s certification and training services, but instead reach the Respondent’s website, where the Respondent holds itself out as the Complainant, or as competing with, or having the potential to compete with, the Complainant’s certification and training services. Finally, the Complainant asserts that website under the disputed domain name allows users to click through, open, and answer thousands of simulated examination questions from the Complainant’s website, which users would normally have to pay to access on the Complainant’s website. Thus, the Respondent is offering the Complainant’s copyrighted examination questions which took the Complainant time, money, and effort to create, on a competing platform. This is a bad faith use because it fraudulently diverts the Complainant’s paying customers from the Complainant to the Respondent as a competitor.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following:

(i) that the domain name registered by the respondent 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 domain name; and

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

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the burden of proving that all these elements are present lies with the Complainant. At the same time, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules, or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar (in the sense of the Policy) to the Complainant’s registered trademark COMPTIA, since the disputed domain name contains this mark in its entirety together with the word “pass”. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is a standard registration requirement and as such it is generally disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. See section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

The Panel finds that the conditions in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are therefore fulfilled in relation to the disputed domain name.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

It is obvious from the Complaint, that the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the trademark COMPTIA.

Further, given the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has chosen not to participate in the proceeding, and since there is no other evidence of the types of circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy that might give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the part of the Respondent in these proceedings, the Panel finds that the conditions in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy are also fulfilled.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires the complainant to prove both registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides examples of circumstances, which shall be evidence of registration and use in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or has 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 holder’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) the respondent 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 respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’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 respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the holder’s website or location.

Accordingly, for the Complainant to succeed, the Panel must be satisfied that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Given the circumstances of the case, including the evidence on record of the long time use and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark COMPTIA, before the registration of the disputed domain name, and the way the disputed domain name is used, it is clear to the Panel in the current circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The disputed domain name is used for a website, which, inter alia by reproducing the Complainant’s logotype CompTIA, clearly gives the Internet user the impression that the website is an official website of the Complainant, or is somehow associated with or endorsed by the Complainant, which is not the case.

Furthermore, as explained by the Complainant, the website that the disputed domain name resolves to allows users to click through, open, and answer simulated examination questions from the Complainant’s website, which users would have to pay to access on the Complainant’s website. Based on this, and also noting the fact that the Respondent’s website displays advertisements, which indicates that the Respondent receives revenue by using the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been and still is used in bad faith to intentionally attempt “to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the Respondent’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 respondent’s] website”. See paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Noting that the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s distinctive and reputed trademark COMPTIA and the gTLD “.com”; that the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions; and that there appears to be no conceivable good faith use that could be made by the Respondent of the disputed domain name, and considering all the facts and evidence of the case, the Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy are also fulfilled in this case.

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 <passcomptia.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Knud Wallberg
Sole Panelist
Date: September 10, 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/