WIPO Arbitration and Mediatin Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Fédération Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”) v. Whois Privacy Shield Services / Winsum Wong

Case No. D2016-2310

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Fédération Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”) of Zurich, Switzerland, internally represented.

The Respondent is Whois Privacy Shield Services of Irvine, California, United States of America / Winsum Wong of Shanghai, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <fifa.net> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Pheenix, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 11, 2016. On November 14, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On November 18, 2016, 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 November 25, 2016 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 December 6, 2016.

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 December 8, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 28, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 29, 2016.

The Center appointed John Swinson as the sole panelist in this matter on January 13, 2017. 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 FIFA, the governing body of “association football”. The Complainant organizes the quadrennial world football championship known as the FIFA World Cup, the first of which was held in 1930. According to the Complaint, the Complainant invests hundreds of millions of dollars in the organization of each tournament. The 2014 FIFA World Cup attracted a global television audience of 3.2 billion people.

The Complainant owns a large number of registered trade marks for FIFA in a number of different jurisdictions, including International Trade Mark Registration 633108 for FIFA which was registered on February 22, 1995 (the “Trade Mark”).

The Respondent is Winsum Wong, an individual of China. The Respondent did not provide a response to the Complaint, so the Panel has little further information regarding the Respondent.

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on July 27, 2014. There is no active website associated with the Disputed Domain Name.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a number of trade marks in which the Complainant has rights, as the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Trade Mark in its entirety. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on July 27, 2014. The Complainant held many registrations for the Trade Mark at that time.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

None of the circumstances in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy apply to the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name.

The Respondent has not made any active use of the Disputed Domain Name. This use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, and is not a fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. Further, the Complainant is not aware that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, or has registered or unregistered rights in the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent has no license or agreement with the Complainant in relation to their use of the Trade Mark.

Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Respondent has a history of cybersquatting. The Complainant has identified three decisions made against the Respondent.

The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with the Complainant in mind. The incorporation of a well-known trade mark into a domain name by a registrant without any plausible explanation is of itself an indicator of bad faith, as are the Respondent’s failure to file a Response and their use of a privacy service to conceal their identity.

The Respondent’s passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied, namely:

(i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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 onus of proving these elements remains on the Complainant even though the Respondent has not filed a Response.

A. Procedural Issues

The Respondent’s failure to file a Response does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant (see, e.g., Airbus SAS, Airbus Operations GmbH v. Alesini Pablo Hernan / PrivacyProtect.org, WIPO Case No. D2013-2059). However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.

The Trade Mark is wholly incorporated into the Disputed Domain Name, with no additional words or letters, save for the Top-Level Domain. The Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Trade Mark.

The Complainant succeeds on the first element of the Policy.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case. This finding is based upon the following:

- The Respondent has not used, or made demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. There is currently no active website associated with the Disputed Domain Name. In the circumstances, this is not a bona fide use of the Disputed Domain Name under the Policy.

- The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submission that the Complainant has not licensed, authorized or otherwise given the Respondent permission to use the Disputed Domain Name.

- There is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, or has registered or common law trade mark rights in relation this name.

- The Respondent has not been making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name without intent for commercial gain. Again, there is no content at the Disputed Domain Name, or other evidence before the Panel, which would suggest such use.

The Respondent had the opportunity to demonstrate her rights or legitimate interests, but did not do so. In the absence of a Response from the Respondent, the prima facie case established by the Complainant has not been rebutted.

In light of the above, the Complainant succeeds on the second element of the Policy.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent registered and subsequently used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.

The Complainant was founded in 1904, and, as stated above, has organized and held the world football championship known as the FIFA World Cup regularly since 1930. It has held registered rights in the Trade Mark since at least as early as 1995. The Trade Mark is undeniably world-famous. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on July 27, 2014.

Previous UDRP panels have found that where the reputation of a complainant in a given mark is significant and the mark has strong similarities to the disputed domain name, the likelihood of confusion is such that bad faith may be inferred (see, e.g., Verner Panton Design v. Fontana di Luce Corp, WIPO Case No. D2012-1909 and cases cited therein). Given that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Trade Mark in its entirety, with no additional words or letters, the Panel finds it highly unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of the Trade Mark at the time the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name.

It is probable that the Respondent intended to divert traffic from the Complainant’s website to the Disputed Domain Name. This is particularly the case given that the Complainant’s official website is at the domain name <fifa.com>, which differs from the Disputed Domain Name only by the Top-Level Domain. This constitutes bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Further, the Complainant has referred the Panel to three prior UDRP decisions in which an adverse finding was made against the Respondent. The Panel considers that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct of registering domain names to prevent owners of trade marks from reflecting their trade marks in those domain names, which is a further indicator of bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy.

In these circumstances, the use of a privacy service also supports a finding of bad faith (see, e.g., The Uder Company Pty Ltd and Stay In Bed Milk & Bread Pty Ltd (trading as Aussie Farmers Direct) v. PrivacyProtect.org, Domain Admin, ID # 10760, WIPO Case No. D2012-0924 and cases cited therein).

In light of the above, and in the absence of a Response and any evidence rebutting bad faith registration and use, the Panel finds that the Complainant has succeeded on the third element 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, <fifa.net>, be transferred to the Complainant.

John Swinson
Sole Panelist
Date: January 24, 2017