About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

CADD Centre Training Services Pvt Ltd v. Jeff Park

Case No. D2015-1008

1. The Parties

The Complainant is CADD Centre Training Services Pvt Ltd of Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India, represented by DePenning & DePenning, India.

The Respondent is Jeff Park of Gwangju, Republic of Korea.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <caddcentre.com> ("Disputed Domain Name") is registered with Korea Information Certificate Authority Inc. d/b/a DomainCa.com (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on June 15, 2015. On June 16, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On June 17, 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.

On June 22, 2015, the Center notified the Parties in both English and Korean that the language of the Registration Agreement for the Disputed Domain Name was Korean. On June 29, 2015, the Complainant submitted the Korean translation of the Complaint. The Complainant also submitted a request that English be the language of the proceeding, to which the Respondent has not replied.

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 the Respondent of the Complaint in both English and Korean, and the proceeding commenced on July 2, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 22, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on July 23, 2015.

The Center appointed Andrew J. Park as the sole panelist in this matter on August 3, 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

The Complainant, CADD Centre Training Services Pvt. Ltd, is affiliated with the CADD Centre Group. The Complainant was formed in 1988 and is Asia's largest skill training provider in Computer Aided Design ("CAD"), Computer Aided Engineering ("CAE"), and Computer Aided Manufacturing ("CAM"). The Complainant has a network of more than 520 training centers in 22 countries, and has trained more than 1 million engineers, graphic artists, and management professionals across the world.

In connection with the Complainant's worldwide business, it uses the trademark CADD CENTRE, which was registered in India on April 20, 1995 to its parent company. The Complainant uses the name "CADD Centre" on all printed materials used in the Complainant's training programs. The Complainant also owns the domain name <caddcentreglobal.com>.

According to the WhoIs database, the Disputed Domain Name <caddcentre.com> was registered on March 13, 2005, to the Respondent.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name should be transferred to the Complainant because:

1) the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant's registered trademark CADD CENTRE. Specifically, the Complainant contends that (1) it has acquired both statutory and common law trademark rights in the name CADD CENTRE based on an Indian trademark that was registered to its parent company on April 20, 1995, as well as extensive use of the trademark in its advertising, promotional, and service materials, and (2) the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant's trademark;

2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has no relationship whatsoever with the Respondent and has never authorized the Respondent to use the CADD CENTRE mark. The Respondent has been using the Disputed Domain Name in a manner that is likely to mislead and deceive consumers into believing that it has a sponsorship, affiliation or approval with the CADD CENTRE trademark owners/licensees/customers when this is not the case; and

3) the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Specifically, the Complainant contends that the CADD CENTRE brand and trademark are well-known in the relevant CAD, CAE, CAM training industry, which the Respondent must have been aware of. The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in an effort to profit on the name, fame, reputation and goodwill associated with the Complainant's trademark. The Complainant contends that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets forth three requirements, which have to be met for the Panel to order the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant. Those requirements are that: (i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and (iii) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Panel has to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable, pursuant to paragraph 15(a) of said Rules. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if the Respondent does not submit a Response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the Complaint.

A. Language of the Proceedings

The Registration Agreement for the Disputed Domain Name is in Korean. Pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, or specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement, i.e., Korean. Here, the Center made a preliminary determination to accept the Complaint filed in English, subject to a determination by the Panel pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Rules.

Having considered the circumstances of the case, the Panel decides that English be adopted as the language of the proceeding under paragraph 10 of the Rules. In coming to this decision, the Panel has taken the following into account:

1) The Complaint has been submitted in English, and it would cause undue delay and expenses if the Complainant is required to translate the Complaint into Korean;

2) The Respondent has not objected to the Complainant's language request;

3) The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website that includes links in English; and

4) Since no response has been filed, there does not appear to be any procedural benefit that may be achieved by insisting on the language of the proceeding being Korean.

Furthermore, the Panel is mindful of the fact that a decision in Korean would not be readily comprehensible by the Complainant and would therefore likely require it to expend resources to translate the same.

In light of these circumstances, the Panel concludes that it will (1) proceed in line with the Center's preliminary decision to accept the Complaint as filed in English; and (2) issue a decision in English.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established that it has registered rights to the trademark CADD CENTRE through its parent company. The Panel is also satisfied that the Complainant has unregistered trademark rights to CADD CENTRE based on its longstanding use of the name in the field of software training programs.

The Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant's trademark CADD CENTRE.

The addition of a Top-Level Domain such as ".com" after a domain name is technically required. Thus, it is well established that such element may be typically disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. Proactiva, WIPO Case No. D2012-0182.

For these reasons, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant's trademark.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Once such a prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating his rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0"), paragraph 2.1.

The Respondent, in not responding to the Complaint, has failed to invoke any of the circumstances, which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights to and/or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. This entitles the Panel to draw inferences from such default as it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules (see, e.g., Talk City, Inc. v. Michael Robertson, WIPO Case No. D2000-0009).

Here, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case. The Respondent has not submitted any arguments or evidence to rebut the Complainant's prima facie case.

The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on March 13, 2005 — long after the Complainant established trademark rights for CADD CENTRE. The Complainant has not authorized, licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its CADD CENTRE trademark. The name of the Respondent has no apparent connection to the Disputed Domain Name that would suggest that he is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or has acquired any rights in the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. Instead, the Panel finds that the Respondent is improperly using the Disputed Domain Name to create a false impression that the Respondent is affiliated with the Complainant. The Disputed Domain Name includes several sponsored links that redirect Internet users to websites that advertise and offer training courses for sale for computer aided design which competes with the Complainant. Such links are named "Cadd Centre", "CAD Courses", "Auto CAD", et cetera. This clearly is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case, a case calling for an answer from the Respondent. The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint and the Panel is unable to find any reasonable basis upon which the Respondent could be said to have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.

Accordingly, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Panel finds under the circumstances that the Complainant has established that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel will deal with the issue of bad faith registration and bad faith use separately below.

First, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.

The registration of a domain name that is similar to a distinctive third-party trademark by the respondent, when the respondent has no relationship to that mark, may suggest bad faith. See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, WIPO Case No. D2000-0403; Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited v. West Coast Consulting, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2005-1319. Given the undisputed facts, the Panel finds it highly doubtful that the Respondent, which has no relationship to the CADD CENTRE trademark, would have registered the Disputed Domain Name without having knowledge of the Complainant or the CADD CENTRE trademark. The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that the Respondent deliberately sought to attract some of the Complainant's customers to the Respondent's website, with the hope that at least some of them will click sponsored links for which the Respondent will be paid. This falls square within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See, e.g., Villeroy & Boch AG v. Mario Pingerna, WIPO Case No. D2007-1912.

Bad faith can also be inferred based on the fame of the Complainant's marks, such that the Respondent was aware or should have been aware of the Complainant's mark and claims of rights thereto. Indeed, it has been established that the registration of a domain name incorporating a well-known trademark can itself constitute registration in bad faith, since it is unlikely that the registrant was unaware of the established rights in the mark at the time the domain name was registered. See, e.g., Nike, Inc. v. B.B. de Boer, WIPO Case No. D2000-1397 (finding bad faith since it was unlikely that the registrant of <nike-shoes.com> was unaware of complainant's well-known NIKE trademark when registering the domain name).

Given the notoriety of the CADD CENTRE trademark in the relevant CAD, CAE, and CAM industries, the Panel finds that it is implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant's trademark rights when registering the Disputed Domain Name and providing links to related goods and services on the corresponding website which may compete with the Complainant. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.

Second, the Panel finds that the Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.

The Panel finds that the only credible explanation for the use of the Disputed Domain Name is to take advantage of the similarity between it and the Complainant's well-known CADD CENTRE trademark, for commercial advantage (e.g., pay-per-click revenue). As mentioned above, the Respondent has no connection whatsoever to the CADD CENTRE trademark. Thus, it is the Panel's opinion that the Respondent must have been aware of the CADD CENTRE trademark and intentionally attempted to use it for commercial gain.

The conduct described above falls squarely within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy and accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii).

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, <caddcentre.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Andrew J. Park
Sole Panelist
Date: August 17, 2015

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/podcasts/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/