ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL CHOICE
Winchester Consultancy Limited v. Pony Taylor
Case No. D2019-1637
1. The Events
Respondent is Pony Taylor, Asia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain that is disputed (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed using the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 11, 2019. A request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name on July 11, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar. On 12, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details july.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal needs of this Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the guidelines for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), as well as the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules” that is“Supplemental).
Relative to the guidelines, paragraphs 2 and 4, the guts formally notified Respondent for the Complaint, in addition to proceedings commenced on July 18, 2019. Prior to the guidelines, paragraph 5, the deadline for reaction ended up being August 7, 2019. Respondent failed to submit any reaction. Appropriately, the Center notified Respondent’s standard on August 13, 2019.
The middle appointed Harrie R. Samaras once the single panelist in this matter on August 19, 2019. The Panel discovers it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of recognition and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as needed because of the Center to make sure conformity because of the Rules, paragraph 7.
On 4, 2019, the Center issued Administrative Panel Procedural Order No. 1 september. The Panel requested clarification regarding certain background information Complainant provided in its Complaint in that Order. Complainant reacted in due time regarding the exact same time. Respondent ended up being supplied a chance to react however the Center would not get any reaction from Respondent.
4. Factual Background
Complainant ended up being included on 12, 2002 july. On November 24, 2008, Complainant acquired the assets of a “swingers” business (described as “a web-based introduction agency and marketing business”) which traded underneath the name “Fabswingers” since 2006. Complainant continues to trade under that true name, making use of a website at “www.fabswingers.com”. That domain title had been registered on 1, 2006 september. The internet site premiered on September 23, 2006. The internet site provides “swinging” services for adults. Between June 2007 and July 2013 there have been over 337 million visits by over 73 million unique people to Complainant’s site. In June 2013 alone there were over 12.5 million visits into the Complainant’s site.
Complainant has the following registered trademarks for FABSWINGERS (the “Mark”): great britain Trademark No. 2582868 (registered on December 25, 2009); united states Trademark Registration No 4033771 (registered October 4, 2011); European Union Trademark No. 13640271 (registered might 11, 2015); and Australian Trademark No. 1385021 (registered June 23, 2011).
Respondent registered the website name on March 8, 2019. At the time of July 11, 2019, there was clearly an internet site from the Domain Name offering “swinging” services.
Complainant’s solicitor delivered a cease and desist communication by e-mail to Respondent on 6, 2019 to which no response was received june.
5. Events’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The services that Respondent offers compete with those of Complainant. Respondent’s internet site is trying to impersonate Complainant. This content associated with true webpage happens to be made to provide the impression that it’s operated by Complainant. The term “Fabswingers” (using a capital “F” at the start of the expressed word“Fabswingers”) appears prominently, in several places, as a trading/brand title regarding the homepage. As an example: “Fabswingers may be the shop that is one-stop, “Pros of FabSwingers”. Complainant’s very own internet site, “www.fabswingers.com”, is described twice from the webpage as though it had been Respondent’s site, including a section of the property web page specialized in Complainant’s web site beneath the going “A brief history about fabswingers.com”. The written text that appears underneath this heading defines Complainant’s site as “this famous site for swingers” and offers data for Complainant’s site and details how exactly to utilize Complainant’s site.
The “FabSwingers” link that seems when you look at the “…history of fabswingers.com” area takes the consumer back again to Respondent’s website. Moreover, the “Register Now” and “Get Started Now” buttons that show up on the house web page website link to competitor online adult websites that are dating.
Complainant depends on its subscribed trademarks to establish liberties into the Mark. Complainant additionally depends on common legislation rights by virtue of the trading that is extensive and tasks. Complainant has obtained significant reputation and goodwill when you look at the Mark gay disabled dating so that it is identified by the general public as distinctive of Complainant’s adult introduction and moving internet business. The website name is identical towards the Mark disregarding the domain suffix.