À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

OLX, Inc. v. J D Mason Singh

Case No. D2014-1037

1. The Parties

The Complainant is OLX, Inc., New York, New York, United States of America, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is J D Mason Singh, Shipley, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <olx-support-team.org> is registered with Ascio Technologies Inc. (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on June 17, 2014. On June 18, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 23, 2014, 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 24, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 14, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on July 17, 2014.

The Center appointed Charles Gielen as the sole panelist in this matter on July 31, 2014. 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 owns the trademark OLX that is protected on the basis of registrations in a multitude of countries worldwide. Among others, this trademark is registered as a word mark in the United States under number 77603813 for services in class 35, registered on May 26, 2009 and as a Community trademark under number 10881456 for services in classes 35 and 38, registered on September 25, 2012.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <olx-support-team.org> on February 15, 2014. According to Annex 11 of the Complaint the disputed domain name does not resolve to a website.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant operates an online classified site that enables users to buy and sell goods, including vehicles, real estate, tickets, and electronics; solicit and offer services, such as babysitting, event services, and repairs; design ads to post on its website; display ads on profiles across social networking sites, such as Facebook; and search for jobs across numerous locations and industries.

Founded in 2006 the Complainant is today one of the world's leading free online classified platforms and it operates the internationally well-known website "www.olx.com", which was set up in 2006 and hosts free, user-generated classified advertisements to facilitate the selling, buying and trading of goods around the world. This website has grown to become one of the world's leading free classified online platforms and is the number 1 marketplace in India, in Brazil and in several other territories and is active in 107 countries and 42 languages, with a focus on Latin America, Sub-Sahara Africa and South Asia. The Complainant currently has offices in Amsterdam, Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo, Delhi, Lisbon and New York. In addition to the above, the Complainant has over 900 domain names incorporating the trademark OLX including <olx.com>, <olx.co>, <olx.co.uk>, <olx.co.za>, <olx.in> and <olx-inc.in>. These domain names are linked to the various online platforms which have over 100 million monthly unique users, generating traffic of over 1.8 billion monthly page views, or 60 million page views per day.

The trademark OLX is in possession of substantial inherent and acquired distinctiveness, and is well-recognized by consumers, industry peers, and the broader global community. Awareness of the trademark OLX is considered to be significant.

The Complainant did not grant any license, permission, authorization or consent to the Respondent to use OLX in the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name has never resolved to a website or legitimate content. Instead, the disputed domain name has been used for email purposes in a phishing scheme to mislead customers of the Complainant by targeting the Complainant's customers or users of its website by posting fraudulent adverts to the Complainant's website. The Respondent prompts and deceives targeted customers or users that express interest in the advert into making payments for delivery by wiring money to the Respondent, who is not affiliated with the Complainant and does not provide delivery services or any other services.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

The Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant's contentions are justified and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to the Complainant. The Panel gives the following reasons for its decision.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant proves that it has rights in the trademark OLX among others based on the aforementioned registrations. This trademark is a distinctive mark and quite well-known. The word "olx" is the dominant element in the disputed domain name, since the words "support" and "team" are purely descriptive. These latter words suggest as if the disputed domain name is linked to the Complainant by offering a supporting team, which clearly is not the case and enhances the likelihood of confusion. In making the comparison between the trademark and the disputed domain name the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") suffix is usually disregarded. The Panel is of the opinion that applying these principles to this case, the disputed domain name should be considered confusingly similar to the trademarks. Therefore, the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant made out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. First of all, the Respondent makes a commercial use of the disputed domain name by a phishing scheme aiming at getting payments from customers from the Complainant. The Complainant shows that the Respondent has not been commonly known under the disputed domain name or has otherwise acquired any rights in the disputed domain name.

The Respondent did not present any allegations or evidence of rights or legitimate interests it might have in the disputed domain name. In view of the aforementioned, the Panel is of the opinion that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is met.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel is furthermore of the opinion that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel recalls that the trademark OLX is a well-known trademark and was used and registered before the disputed domain name was registered. The Panel is of the opinion that at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant's well-known trademark OLX which follows from the fact that the Respondent is targeting customers of the Complainant and misleading them by using a fraudulent phishing scheme. There is no better evidence of bad faith than a case like this where a fraudulent phishing scheme is set up with the help of a domain name that contains the trademark of a company the customers of which are being misled and deceived into believing they are dealing with the owner of the trademark.

The Panel therefore considers the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) to be met.

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 <olx-support-team.org> be transferred to the Complainant.

Charles Gielen
Sole Panelist
Date: August 5, 2014

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/fr/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/news/fr/