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

OLX B.V. v. OLX Car

Case No. D2016-1905

1. The Parties

The Complainant is OLX B.V. of Hoofddorp, the Netherlands, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is OLX Car of Aswan, Egypt.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <olx-car.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 19, 2016. On September 19, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same date, 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.

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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 28, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 18, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 19, 2016.

The Center appointed Nayiri Boghossian as the sole panelist in this matter on October 27, 2016. 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 the owner of the trademark OLX. The Complainant states that the trademark OLX is short for “online exchange” and that it is used in connection with the Complainant’s online classified sites for the exchange of goods and services.

The Complainant has registered the trademark OLX in a number of countries, including Egypt (See, e.g., Egyptian trademark number 297256, registered on February 7, 2016).

The Complainant created its company in the Netherlands early 2006. The Complainant has registered over 1,000 domain names incorporating the trademark OLX.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on May 12, 2016. The disputed domain name resolves to a website which offers the possibility of buying and selling cars.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant owns the trademark OLX which stands for “online exchange”. The Complainant operates sites for the exchange of goods and services. It further contends to be a leading online platform for classifieds operating since a decade and present in more than 40 countries. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark as it incorporates the trademark of the Complainant. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” should not be taken into consideration and the use of the generic term “car” reinforces the confusing similarity as the Complainant’s sites are used for selling cars. The fact that the disputed domain name resolves to a website for classifieds which is the Claimant’s activity further adds to the confusing similarity.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent was not authorized by the Complainant to use its trademark nor is it affiliated with or sponsored by the Complainant. Furthermore, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate, noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has copied the logo of the Complainant in order to take advantage of the fame and goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark. Furthermore, the Respondent is selling competing goods. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name a decade after the Complainant had started using the trademark and after the filing of a trademark application by the Complainant in Egypt.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The trademark of the Complainant is well known and has been used since 2006. The use of the term “car” while using the trademark of the Complainant clearly indicates that the Respondent is aware of the activity and the trademark of the Complainant. This is further confirmed by the fact that the Respondent is operating an online platform for classifieds together with an imitation of the Complainant’s logo. The Respondent is attempting to create confusion in the minds of consumers in order to lead them to believe that it is associated with the Complainant and generate traffic to its website. Furthermore, the Respondent failed to respond to the cease-and-desist letter sent by the Complainant.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has submitted a number of trademark registration certificates for the trademark OLX in Egypt as well as a list of its domain name registrations which include the trademark OLX and which exceed 1,000registrations. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established its ownership of the trademark OLX.

The disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s trademark OLX combined with the generic term “car”, which does not eliminate the confusing similarity with the trademark OLX but enhances the impression of being associated with the Complainant as the Complainant is in the business of operating online platforms for classifieds. The gTLD “.com” should typically be ignored when assessing confusing similarity as established by prior UDRP decisions.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, particularly by asserting that it never authorized the Respondent to use its trademark.

The Respondent has not provided evidence of circumstances of the types specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or of any other circumstances, giving rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In particular, the Panel notes the presence of what appears to be a variation of the Complainant’s OLX logo on the Respondent’s website. As such, the Respondent appears to be creating the misleading impression that it is the Complainant, or somehow affiliated with the Complainant. The Panel does not find this to be a bona fide offering of goods and services within the meaning of the Policy.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has met the requirement under the Policy of showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The element of bad faith is evidenced by the fact that the trademark OLX is used in connection with online platforms for classifieds and the disputed domain name is used to link to a website offering users the possibility of buying and selling cars. Furthermore, the trademark OLX has been in use for a decade and more than a thousand domain names have been registered using the OLX trademark by the Complainant. Consequently, the Complainant’s websites must be widely known and used by users posting or looking for classifieds. Hence, it must be that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant and its trademark and has registered and used the disputed domain name comprising the Complainant’s mark with the aim of attracting consumers to its website and with the intent of commercial gain, by creating the impression of being affiliated with the Complainant.

Such conduct falls squarely within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied 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, <olx-car.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Nayiri Boghossian
Sole Panelist
Date: November 2, 2016

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/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/