WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

E City General Trading LLC v. Kiril Vaitsekhovich

Case No. DAE2020-0006

1. The Parties

Complainant is E City General Trading LLC, United Arab Emirates, internally represented.

Respondent is Kiril Vaitsekhovich, Belarus.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <ecity.ae> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with AE Domain Administration (.aeDA).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 29, 2020. On December 1, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to AE Domain Administration (.aeDA) a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On December 6, 2021, AE Domain Administration (.aeDA) 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 UAE Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy for – UAE DRP approved by .aeDA (the “Policy”), the Rules for UAE Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy – UAE DRP (the “Rules”), and the Supplemental Rules for UAE Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy – UAE DRP (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 21, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 10, 2021. On December 21, 2021, the Center received an email from a party claiming to be the domain broker and representative of the owner of the Domain Name. Possible settlement email was sent to the Parties on December 22, 2021. Respondent did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on January 26, 2021. Another possible settlement email was sent to the Parties on February 10, 2021. The proceeding was suspended on February 18, 2021. The proceeding was reinstituted on May 13, 2021.

The Center appointed Robert A. Badgley, John Swinson and Adam Taylor as panelists in this matter on July 6, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member of 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 a United Arab Emirates company founded in 2008. Over the years, Complainant asserts, it has “engaged with multinational companies to distribute wide range of products including but limited to smartphones, tablets, notebooks, televisions, gaming products, home appliances & more”. Complainant also states that it provides repair, maintenance, and installation services for computers, mobile phones, electronics, and home appliances. Complainant has annexed to the Complaint documents from Dubai Department of Economic Development and the Dubai Chamber of Commerce & Industry to corroborate the foregoing assertions.

Complainant also annexes to the Complaint an apparent trademark registration issued by the United Arab Emirates Trade Marks Department for the stylized trademark E>CITY. According to Complainant, General Enterprises LLC “is the owner of the trademark which is an affiliate of [Complainant] E City General Trading LLC as controlled by the same owners”. Complainant operates a commercial website at “www.ecityuae.ae”.

Complainant alleges as follows (and this quotation is the entirety of Complainant’s discussion under both the “Rights or Legitimate Interests” and “Bad Faith” sections of the Complaint):

“The Complainant had a business meeting with the Respondent to carry out some business and did not reach an agreement with him, later after the meeting the respondent with bad intention registered the disputed domain without the knowledge of the Complainant.”

It is not clear from the record when Respondent registered the Domain Name. According to AE Domain Administration (.aeDA), the Domain Name was created on November 7, 2020 and registered on October 9, 2021. It is also not clear from the record whether the Domain Name has ever resolved to an active website. (Complainant did not provide any annexes or even allegations about the content of the website, if any, to which the Domain Name resolved at various points in time.) It appears that at some point, the Domain Name was listed “for sale” at “www.uniregistry.com”. No price was indicated.

The record lacks any evidence of the nature of the “business meeting” that allegedly occurred on some unknown date, including whether the meeting involved any goods or services provided by Complainant under its affiliate company’s apparent E>CITY trademark.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that it has established all three elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 6(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel notes that Complainant has not entirely connected the dots to establish the alleged relationship between the owner of the E>CITY registered trademark and Complainant. That being said, it appears that Complainant operates a commercial website at its domain name “www.ecityuae.ae”. The Panel need not resolve the issue of Complainant’s trademark rights, however, because the Panel concludes (below) that Complainant has not proven that Respondent registered or used the Domain Name in bad faith.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Pursuant to paragraph 6(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements:

(i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

In view of the Panel’s conclusion (below) that Complainant has failed to establish the essential “bad faith” element required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name, the Panel need not address the issue whether Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests vis-à-vis the Domain Name.

C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 6(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation”, are evidence of the registration or use of the Domain Name in “bad faith”:

(i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or
(ii) that 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 Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location.

The Panel concludes that Complainant has failed to carry its burden of proving that the Domain Name was registered or used in bad faith within the meaning of the Policy. As noted above, Complainant’s entire presentation regarding Respondent’s alleged bad faith is the following single sentence:

There is no documentary evidence or sworn testimony to provide even minimal context about the alleged “business meeting”. It is unknown from this exceedingly thin record what the meeting was about, even in general terms, or whether it involved Complainant’s business as conducted under the E>CITY trademark.

While it is true that Respondent did not file a response in this proceeding and therefore did not specifically deny Complainant’s allegations, the burden rests with Complainant to make out a prima facie case in the first instance. Mere conclusory allegations do not suffice.

Complainant has not established Policy paragraph 6(a)(iii).

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.

Robert A. Badgley
Presiding Panelist

Adam Taylor
Panelist

John Swinson
Panelist
Date: July 20, 2021