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

BuzzFeed, Inc. v. Ryan Lenahan

Case No. D2015-0803

1. The Parties

Complainant is BuzzFeed, Inc. of New York, New York, United States of America, internally represented.

Respondent is Ryan Lenahan of Riverside, California, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <buzzfeednews.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name") is registered with eNom (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on May 6, 2015. On May 7, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On May 8, 2015, 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. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was not signed, Complainant resent the Complaint with signature on May 27, 2015.

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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 28, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 17, 2015. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent's default on June 18, 2015.

The Center appointed Michael A. Albert as the sole panelist in this matter on June 24, 2015. 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

Complainant, BuzzFeed, Inc. ("BuzzFeed"), is an Internet news and entertainment media company incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

BuzzFeed registered the BUZZFEED trademark in the United States (No. 4,600,026) for entertainment services to be used for website content displaying trending news, on September 9, 2014. The mark has been in use since January 16, 2007.

BuzzFeed also registered the BUZZFEED trademark in the United States (No. 3,367,020) for marketing and advertising, on January 8, 2008, with the same first use date.

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on July 22, 2013.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant is an Internet news and entertainment company, and has expanded its offerings from entertainment and "lists" to news and longform reporting. In 2007, Complainant adopted and began to use the designation and trademark BUZZFEED. Complainant's official website includes a page which is exclusively focused on news: the page is titled "BuzzFeed News." Continuously since 2007, Complainant has used the BUZZFEED marks in connection with products and services available on its website.

Currently, many news organizations worldwide cover Complainant, and regularly interview its reporters to cover news events of the day. Complainant currently reaches a global audience of over one billion readers.

Complainant has developed a robust trademark. Attached to the Complaint are copies of the registration certificates for Complainant's BUZZFEED marks.

As of the date of the Complaint, the Disputed Domain Name <buzzfeednews.com> resolved to a site that was inactive, and appeared to indicate that the content was offline or inaccessible. Respondent, which is not associated or affiliated with Complainant, has not been authorized to use or incorporate any of Complainant's marks into its domain name. Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name is deceptive and misleading inasmuch as it wholly incorporates Complainant's BUZZFEED mark combined with the generic term "news" suggesting that Respondent's website is the landing page for Complainant's BuzzFeed News service.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

The Panel finds that Complainant has met each of the elements required by the Policy: In particular, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, and Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has made extensive use of the BUZZFEED marks in connection with its Internet based entertainment and news services, and has obtained trademark registrations in the United States.

The inclusion of the entire BUZZFEED trademark in the Disputed Domain Name, adding only the term "news", results in a domain name which, taken as a whole, is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks. In particular, it is well established that the addition of a common descriptive word to a trademark in a domain name does not distinguish the domain name from the trademark or diminish the risk of confusion. See Citrix Systems, Inc. v. WhoisProtectService.net ProtectService, Ltd. / Alexandr golounin, WIPO Case No. D2014-0250 (transferring <citrixtestdrive.com> to the complainant); Citrix Systems, Inc. v. Jing Wu, WIPO Case No. D2012-1935 (transferring <citrixsupportteam.com> to the complainant).

Here, the descriptive word "news" that was added to Complainant's marks is descriptive of the goods and services provided by Complainant in connection with those marks and therefore only increases, rather than mitigates, the risk of confusion.

The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent has no connection or affiliation with Complainant and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use the BUZZFEED marks in a domain name or in any other manner. Respondent has not been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name.

Respondent is also not utilizing the Disputed Domain Name as a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent is not doing business using the Disputed Domain Name. Rather, Respondent is making unauthorized use of Complainant's mark, with the likely effect of confusing Complainant's customers and users by making them believe that Complainant's website is down and inaccessible.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

As explained above, Respondent's intentional registration of the Disputed Domain Name that contains Complainant's marks was likely to confuse Complainant's users, damaging Complainant's brand. Respondent's inaction with respect to the Disputed Domain Name, furthermore, suggests that Respondent had no bona fide intent to use the Disputed Domain Name. See Kate Spade, LLC v. Darmstadter Designs, WIPO Case No. D2001-1384 (failure to use the domain name with a website for three years since registration contributed to a finding of bad faith).

Respondent also attempted to conceal his identity. A third party proxy registration service, WhoisGuard, was utilized by Respondent.1

The above registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name were clearly intended to, and likely had the effect of, trading on the goodwill associated with Complainant and its BUZZFEED marks, and confusing consumers into believing Complainant's services were not online or were inaccessible.

Respondent has not rebutted the above showing in any way.

Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Complainant has met its burden of proving that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and 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, <buzzfeednews.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Michael A. Albert
Sole Panelist
Date: June 29, 2015

1 The proxy service provided Complainant with Respondent's identity before the filing of the Complaint.

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/