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

Facebook Inc. v. Global Domain Privacy Services Inc. / Evgeniy Gavonov

Case No. DME2019-0011

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Facebook Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France.

The Respondent is Global Domain Privacy Services Inc., Panama / Evgeniy Gavonov, Ukraine.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <facebooklibra.me> is registered with URL Solutions, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 8, 2019. On October 9, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 10, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response 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 October 11, 2019, 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 October 15, 2019.

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 October 16, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 5, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 6, 2019.

The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on November 18, 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

The Complainant is Facebook Inc., an internationally recognized provider of social networking services and related products. The Complainant advertises and sells its services through websites under its <facebook.com>, <facebook.org>, <facebook.biz> and <facebook.us> domain names, as well as numerous other similar domain names.

The Complainant owns the FACEBOOK trademark in many jurisdictions throughout the world (e.g. United States registration No. 3041791, registered on January 10, 2006, and European Union trademark registration No. 004535381, registered on June 22, 2011).

The disputed domain name was first registered on June 23, 2019. According to the information provided by the Registrar, the disputed domain name is currently held by Evgeniy Gavonov, the Respondent. The disputed domain name has stopped resolving to an active website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant alleges that it has satisfied all elements of the Policy, paragraph 4.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

On the basis of the facts and evidence introduced by the Complainant, and with regard to paragraphs 4(a)(b) and (c) of the Policy, the Panel concludes as follows:

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate its registered right in the trademark FACEBOOK.

The FACEBOOK trademark is reproduced in the disputed domain name <facebooklibra.me>. The disputed domain name differs from the trademark only by the addition of the term “libra”.

It is the consensus view of the UDPR panels that the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), sections 1.7 and 1.8).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

The Complainant has thus fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

There are no indications before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant nor making any bona fide use of the disputed domain name.

The Respondent used the disputed domain name to host a website that contained links for purchasing “libra”, a digital currency, which is not yet available on the market and was announced to be launched by the Complainant.

UDPR panels have largely held that the composition of a trademark plus additional term cannot constitute fair use if it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1). The disputed domain name was registered shortly after the Complainant had announced the launch of its digital currency named “libra”, and the Respondent previously operated a website under the disputed domain name that used the logo of the Complainant’s “libra” currency and copied materials published at the Complainant’s official website for the “libra” currency under the domain name <libra.org>. Therefore, it is more likely than not that the Respondent is not making any bona fide use of the disputed domain name.

Based on the Complainant’s credible contentions, the Panel finds that the Complainant, having made out a prima facie case which remains unrebutted by the Respondent, has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Under the circumstances of this case and considering the notoriety of the Complainant’s trademark (Facebook, Inc. v. He Wenming, WIPO Case No. DCC2013-0004), it can be inferred that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name.

A registration of a domain name shortly after significant media attention, e.g. in connection with a product launch, supports the finding that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.8.2). The disputed domain name was registered on June 23, 2019, only days after the Complainant had announced its launch of the “libra” currency.

Furthermore, the website previously hosted under the disputed domain name used the Complainant’s logo and other materials published at the Complainant’s official website for the “libra” currency. This indicates that the Respondent is engaged in an intentional attempt to pass himself off as the Complainant and to attract Internet users to his website for his own commercial benefit (Claudie Pierlot v. Yinglong Ma, WIPO Case No. D2018-2466). Furthermore, the term “libra” reinforces the association and increases the confusion with the Complainant, given that the Complainant, shortly before the disputed domain name was registered, had announced the launch of an online currency called “libra”. In this respect, the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation.

The Respondent therefore uses the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The fact that the disputed domain name is currently pointing to an inactive webpage does not present a finding of bad faith in the present case.

Accordingly, the Complainant has also fulfilled paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

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 <facebooklibra.me> be transferred to the Complainant.

Tobias Zuberbühler
Sole Panelist
Date: November 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/fr/web/podcasts/ https://www.wipo.int/news/fr/