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. Mark Miller, ca domains

Case No. D2019-0680

1. The Parties

Complainant is Virgin Enterprises Limited, United Kingdom, represented by A.A. Thornton & Co, United Kingdom.

Respondent is Mark Miller, ca domains, Canada.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <virgingalacticinc.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameSilo, LLC (“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (“Center”) on March 26, 2019. On March 26, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 26 and April 2, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name that differed from that in the Complaint while confirming other details of the registration. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on April 3, 2019, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on April 5, 2019.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 8, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 28, 2019. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on April 29, 2019.

The Center appointed Debra J. Stanek as the sole panelist in this matter on May 21, 2019. 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 is a member of the Virgin Group of companies. The VIRGIN mark is well-known worldwide for an array of services. Complainant owns registrations for the mark VIRGIN GALACTIC for the businesses of its affiliated companies in the Virgin Group, including in the United Kingdom (Reg. No. 3187698, registered on January 13, 2017), European Union (Reg. No. 4756921, registered on January 18, 2007), and United States of America (Reg. No. 4481359, registered on February 11, 2014) for the mark VIRGIN GALACTIC for space-related vehicles and space travel and transportation services.

Respondent registered the Domain Name <virgingalacticinc.com> on January 16, 2019. It does not appear that Respondent actively used the Domain Name for a website. However, the Domain Name has been used in email addresses used to communicate with third parties.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

1. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The VIRGIN marks are well-known throughout the world. Complainant owns a portfolio of thousands of VIRGIN marks for a variety of goods and services, including the mark VIRGIN GALACTIC for space-related vehicles and space-related travel and transportation services. In addition, Complainant operates a website at “www.virgingalactic.com” and promotes its VIRGIN GALACTIC mark through social media platforms.

The Domain Name is comprised of “virgin,” “galactic,” and “inc” and therefore includes the entirety of Complainant’s VIRGIN GALACTIC mark. The additional element “inc” would be understood as referring to an incorporated company, specifically, the company that operates the VIRGIN GALACTIC business. Therefore, it is insufficient to distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s mark.

Further, the Domain Name includes Complainant’s VIRGIN marks.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with an active website.

Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its marks.

It appears that Respondent is using the Domain Name to send email messages from “@virgingalacticinc.com” that falsely purport to be from Complainant’s affiliate, Virgin Galactic LLC. The message is in the name of an actual Virgin Supply Chain Director and includes other address information and names from Virgin Galactic LLC.

The message seeks to set up an account with the recipient and likely is part of an effort to obtain personal and sensitive information for financial gain. Complainant is aware of a similar fraudulent effort, using the <virgiingalactic.com> domain name, which was the subject of a proceeding decided under the Policy on March 3, 2019. Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Eric Johnson, Eric Johnson Group, WIPO Case No. D2019-0093.

There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Respondent is using the Domain Name to send and receive fraudulent email messages for financial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion between the Domain Name and Complainant’s mark.

The messages include information specific to Complainant’s affiliate – the name of a Supply Chain Director, a business address, etc. The information, combined with the fame of the VIRGIN marks, make it inconceivable that Respondent did not know of Complainant and Complainant’s mark before registering the Domain Name.

The Domain Name was registered on the same date that Complainant filed WIPO Case No. D2019-0093 with the Center and copied the relevant registrar. Complainant believes there is a strong possibility that Respondent registered the Domain Name when faced with the prospect that the <virgiingalactic.com> domain name would be locked.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1. Procedural Matters

When this proceeding was initiated, the holder of the Domain Name registration was a “privacy” service. Thereafter, the Registrar disclosed the underlying registrant name and organization. Consistent with section 4.4.5 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), the Panel finds that the underlying registrant is the appropriate Respondent.

6.2. Substantive Matters

To prevail, a complainant must prove, as to a disputed domain name, that:

(i) It is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the complainant has rights.

(ii) The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to it.

(iii) It has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Where, as here, Respondent has not answered the Complaint, a default does not automatically result in a finding for Complainant. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.3. Complainant has the burden of establishing the required elements. The Panel may, however, draw such inferences from Respondent’s default as it considers appropriate. See Rules, paragraph 14(b).

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established its rights in the VIRGIN GALACTIC mark by virtue of its United Kingdom, European Union, and United States registrations.

The Domain Name is not identical to Complainant’s mark. However, based on a straightforward comparison of the Domain Name and the textual components of the mark, the Panel finds that the mark is recognizable in the Domain Name (excluding the Top-Level Domain). See WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.7 and 1.8. The additional of “inc” does not differentiate or distinguish the Domain Name from the mark.

The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel also shares the consensus view that a complainant may establish that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of a domain name by making a prima facie showing. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1 (once complainant makes a prima facie case, burden of showing rights or legitimate interests in the domain name shifts to respondent). The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie showing under this element.

There is no indication or reason to believe that Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name. Respondent’s use of the Domain Name is not in connection with a bona fide offering and is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. It is evident that the Domain Name was being used as part of a scheme to mislead recipients into believing the messages were from Complainant’s affiliate. Given the fame of the VIRGIN marks, it is difficult to find any circumstances under which Respondent could be using, or intending to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of any kind.

Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie showing. The Panel concludes that Complainant has established that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Complainant must establish that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

The documentary evidence submitted by Complainant consists of copies of email messages using the Domain Name as part of the sender’s email address. The messages identify the sender as “[...]@virgingalacticinc.com” and, below sender’s name, the title “Supply Chain Director.” The message requests a price quote and contemplates creating an account. This use evidences Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name as part of a scheme to defraud. These actions also show that Respondent actually knew of Complainant’s mark and adopted and used it intending recipients to believe that the communications were from Complainant.

In light of these facts and the adverse inferences that arise from Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel finds that Complainant has established that Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name 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 Domain Name <virgingalacticinc.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Debra J. Stanek
Sole Panelist
Date: May 27, 2019

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/