WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Discovery Communications, LLC v. Wang Liqun

Case No. DAE2021-0001

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Discovery Communications, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Talal Abu Ghazaleh Legal, Egypt.

The Respondent is Wang Liqun, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <discoveryplus.ae> (“Disputed 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 January 7, 2021. On January 7, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to AE Domain Administration (.aeDA) a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On January 10, 2021, AE Domain Administration (.aeDA) 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 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 20, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 9, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 11, 2021.

The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as panelist in this matter on February 18, 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 global media company that provides content across multiple distribution platforms, including linear platforms such as pay-television, free-to-air and broadcast television, authenticated GO applications, digital distribution arrangements and content licensing arrangements.

The Complainant provides original and purchased content and live events to approximately 4 billion cumulative subscribers and viewers worldwide.

Moreover, the Complainant owns several registrations for the trademarks DISCOVERY, DISCOVERY +, DISCOVERY PLUS, among others:

- DISCOVERY, European Union Trademark Registration No. 1369263, registered on January 3, 2001;
- DISCOVERY, United States trademark No. 3952377, registered on April 26, 2011;
- DISCOVERY+, United Arab Emirates trademark No. 333468, registered on November 11, 2020;
- DISCOVERY+, Singapore trademark No. 40202011815P-02, registered on June 5, 2020.
- DISCOVERY PLUS (& Design), Peru trademark registration No. 00025136 registered on October 14, 2019.

It is important to highlight that the Complainant has publicly announced and widely advertised the launch of its premium DISCOVERY+ streaming service, which is rolling out globally and slated to launch in the European Union the first week of January 2021.

In addition, the Complainant owns the domain names <discovery.com> registered on April 20, 1993, <discoveryplus.com> registered on February 14, 2013 and <discoveryplus.co.uk> registered on May 2, 2019, which are connected to websites incorporating its DISCOVERY+ trademark.

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on November 26, 2020. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a parking page in order to earn pay-per-click (PPC) revenue.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contentions can be summarized as follows:

The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s DISCOVERY+, DISCOVER PLUS, and DISCOVERY trademarks.

Therefore, the use of the Disputed Domain Name was visually and phonetically in conflict with the Complainant’s trade name and trademarks.

The addition of the country code Top-Level domain (“ccTLD”) “.ae” does not have any impact on the overall impression of the dominant portion of the Disputed Domain Name and is therefore irrelevant to determine the confusing similarity between the trademark and the Disputed Domain Name.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name since: (i) the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way; (ii) the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its common law and registered trademarks; (iii) The Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name as the operation of the DISCOVERY trademark dates back to year 1985 and its registration of the trademark DISCOVERY dates back to year 1989. Thus, the Complainant’s trademark DISCOVERY has been in use for 35 years preceding the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name at issue; and (iv) the Respondent is not commonly known in the market by the Disputed Domain Name.

The Complainant further alleges that the Disputed Domain Name directs to a parking page containing various commercial/sponsored links of third-party websites. Hence, the Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. Indeed, the Respondent offered the Disputed Domain Name for sale at the webpage to which it resolves through stating “Purchase this domain” (written in Arabic language) and “The domain name discoveryplus.ae is offered for sale by its owner, at an estimated price of 9999 USD”.

The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered in bad faith as it is implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s trademarks when the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name; since the Complainant has been operating the DISCOVERY trademark and established its company since 1985; registered its trademark DISCOVERY since 1989; and registered its domain name <discovery.com> since 1993 and <discoveryplus.com> since 2013.

The Complainant further states that the Respondent must have the Complainant’s DISCOVERY, DISCOVERY+, and other DISCOVERY formative trademarks in mind when registering the Disputed Domain Name since they are widely known trademarks and associated exclusively to the Complainant.

Moreover, the Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name resolved to a parking page with the following words displayed: “Purchase this domain” and “The domain name discoverplus.ae is offered for sale by its owner, at an estimated price of 9999 USD!” and “discoveryplus.ae is for sale”.

Finally, the Complainant contends that the Respondent had been involved in previous UDRP cases because of registering domain names reproducing or incorporating third party trademarks, which is indicative of bad faith registration and use.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

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

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

(ii) the 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

Based on the evidence submitted, this Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name <discoveryplus.ae> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s DISCOVERY and DISCOVERY PLUS trademarks. The Disputed Domain Name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s trademarks in their entirety.

Moreover, the addition of the ccTLD “.ae” does not change this finding, since the TLD is generally disregarded in such an assessment of confusingly similarity.

Therefore, this Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement of paragraph 6(a) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 6(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name:

(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, 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 (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 are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service at issue.

There is no evidence of the existence of any of those rights or legitimate interests. The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the Disputed Domain Name or to use the DISCOVERY or DISCOVERY PLUS trademarks.

As such, this Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the second requirement of paragraph 6(a) of the Policy.

C. Registered or is Being Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 6(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent registered or subsequently used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.

The Complainant has used its well-known trademarks long before the Disputed Domain Name was registered. In addition, the Complainant owns the domain names <discovery.com> registered on April 20, 1993, and <discoveryplus.com> registered on February 14, 2013.

In light of this, the Respondent had evidently knowledge of the Complainant and the Complainant’s DISCOVERY, DISCOVERY+, and DISCOVERY PLUS trademarks when it registered the Disputed Domain Name.

The circumstances in the case before the Panel indicates that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and the Complainant’s trademarks when registering the Disputed Domain Name and it has intentionally created likelihood confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks in order to attract Internet users for its own commercial gain.

In addition, the Respondent has been involved in several previous domain name disputes, and has been ordered to transfer domain names to its legitimate owners.

Finally, the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a parking page in order to earn pay-per-click revenue and is offered for sale at the amount of USD 9,999. The Panel finds that the Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant, who is the owner of the trademark DISCOVERY PLUS, or to a competitor of the Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of his documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name, according the paragraph 6(b)(i) of the Policy. The Panel also finds that by using the Disputed Domain Name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website, according the paragraph 6(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Therefore, taking all circumstances into account and for all above reasons, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 6(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Name <discoveryplus.ae> be transferred to the Complainant.

Pablo A. Palazzi
Panelist
Date: March 3, 2021