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

Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Zhuhai Yingxun Keji Limited / John Riley

Case No. D2018-0197

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Virgin Enterprises Limited of London, United Kingdom, represented by Burges Salmon LLP, United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Zhuhai Yingxun Keji Limited of Zhuhai, China / John Riley of Long Beach, California, United States of America (“United States”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <virgin-orbit.com> is registered with Eranet International Limited (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 31, 2018. On January 31, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name(s). On February 5, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification 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 February 13, 2018, 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 February 13, 2018.

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 February 16, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 8, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 9, 2018.

The Center appointed Jonas Gulliksson as the sole panelist in this matter on March 20, 2018. 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 part of the Virgin Group and owner and manager of the VIRGIN trademarks and brand.

The Complainant is the proprietor of, inter alia,the following trademark registrations.

European Union Trademark Registration No. 011991882, registered on December 10, 2013 for the word mark VIRGIN for goods and services in classes 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 37 and 40;

UK Trademark Registration No. UK00003186871, registered on October 20, 2017 for the word mark VIRGIN ORBIT for goods and services in classes 9, 12, 16, 25, 28, 38 and 39.

UK Trademark Registration No. UK00003186871 registered on October 13, 2017 for a figurative mark containing the word elements VIRGIN ORBIT for goods and services in classes 9, 12, 16, 25, 28, 38 and 39.

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

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant mainly alleges the following.

The Virgin Group, of which the Complainant is part, is engaged in a diverse range of business sectors such as Travel & Leisure, Telecoms & Media, Music & Entertainment, Financial Service and Health & Wellness.

Virgin Orbit is a part of the Virgin Group. It was formed in 2017 to provide launch services for small satellites.

The disputed domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s VIRGIN and VIRGIN ORBIT trademarks in full, with the mere addition of a hyphen separating the words VIRGIN and ORBIT of the latter and the suffix “.com”.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. There is no information to suggest a legitimate right to use the Complainant’s VIRGIN and VIRGIN ORBIT trademarks by the Respondent. Further, nothing suggests that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the disputed domain name currently resolves to the genuine <virginorbit.com> webpage, which has the potential to create further confusion as to the authenticity of any email correspondence sent from an associated account.

The disputed domain name has been used as a part of an email scam. The Complainant has recently been notified of an instance of fraudulent email involving fraudulent email correspondence being sent to computer hardware suppliers from email addresses associated with the disputed domain name. The emails in question were purportedly sent on behalf of “a Mr.” (who is listed in the email footer as the “Senior Purchasing Manager” of Virgin Orbit), and a Mr. (the name of the genuine Director of Supply Chain for Virgin Orbit). The email scams were intended to defraud the targeted organizations into corresponding with the sender in connection with sham business orders relating to computer hardware in the belief that they were, in fact, dealing with Virgin Orbit, when that was not the case. Neither the disputed domain name nor the email addresses from which the email correspondence was sent from are in any way connected with the Complainant, Virgin Orbit or the Virgin Group.

The email scam was designed to mislead the recipient into believing that they are corresponding with a representative of Virgin Orbit when this is not the case. The Respondent, by using the disputed domain name to register an email account which looks to be affiliated with Virgin Orbit, has intentionally attempted to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s VIRGIN and VIRGIN ORBIT trademarks as to the source of the email scam. The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant.

Against this background the Complainant considers that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove all three of the following elements:

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

(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

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

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name contains the trademark VIRGIN in its entirety and, with the addition of a hyphen and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) .“com”, it also contains the trademark VIRGIN ORBIT. It is well-established among UDRP panels that the gTLD is not distinguishing. Both of the afore-mentioned trademarks are registered trademarks owned by the Complainant. The hyphen is not sufficient to distinguish the distinguishing part of the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark VIRGIN ORBIT. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VIRGIN ORBIT trademark and that the first requirement of the Policy is fulfilled.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

In cases when a Respondent fails to present a response, the Complainant is still required to make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not proven otherwise. The Panel therefore finds the requirements of the second element of the Policy fulfilled.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant’s registered trademarks VIRGIN and VIRGIN ORBIT predate the disputed domain name and it is not probable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant or its trademarks. The circumstances presented by the Complainant and the submitted supporting evidence regarding an email scam with use of the disputed domain name supports a finding of bad faith. The Panel therefore finds that the third requirement of the Policy is fulfilled.

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, <virgin-orbit.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Jonas Gulliksson
Sole Panelist
Date: March 27, 2018

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/