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

G4S Plc. v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Fred Lam

Case No. D2019-2539

1. The Parties

The Complainant is G4S Plc., United Kingdom (“UK”), represented by SafeNames Ltd., UK.

The Respondent is Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org, United States of America / Fred Lam, UK.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <turkiyeg4s.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 16, 2019. On October 16, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On the same day, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the 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 17, 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 18, 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 22, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 11, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 12, 2019.

The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on November 15, 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 a British security services company initially founded in 1901 but which has been trading under its current name G4S since 2004 when the Danish company Group 4 Flack and Securicor merged.

The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark G4S registered, inter alia, as an International Registration with the registration no. 885912, on October 11, 2005. The official logo version of the mark is also registered, inter alia, in the UK since 2006. The Complainant owns <g4s.com>.

The Domain Name registered on August 27, 2019, and it has been used for competing logistic services unconnected with the Complainant, but using the Complainant’s official logo.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:

The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark G4S registered, inter alia, as an International Registration since 2005. The logo version of the mark is also registered, inter alia, in the UK since 2006. The Complainant owns <g4s.com>.

The Domain Name registered in 2019 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark adding only the word “Turkiye” which means Turkey in the Turkish language and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” which does not prevent such confusing similarity.

The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and has not been authorised by the Complainant.

The Domain Name has been attached to a site offering competing logistics services and using the Complainant’s logo to impersonate the Complainant. This cannot be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial, legitimate or fair use. It is registration and use in bad faith to disrupt the business of a competitor and to attract and mislead Internet users for commercial gain.

The website is similar to other websites that target brands from the same industry and has the same passage of text describing the management of the site. It is suspected that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name as a scam in order to get information or payments from Internet users.

The use of the Complainant’s official logo to impersonate the Complainant shows that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and its business.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name combines the Complainant’s G4S mark (registered as International Registration no. 885912 since 2005) the geographical term “Turkiye” which means Turkey in the Turkish language and the gTLD “.com”.

The addition of the geographical term “Turkiye” and the gTLD “.com” to the Complainant’s mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark which is still recognisable in the Domain Name.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy.

B Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered the Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. The use of the Domain Name is commercial so it cannot be noncommercial legitimate fair use.

The Respondent has used the site attached to the Domain Name to offer competing logistical services using the Complainant’s official logo without authorisation. It does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with the Complainant. The Panel finds this use is confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services.

As such the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

C Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The use of the Complainant’s official logo on the site attached to the Domain Name for logistical services shows that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and its business.

In the opinion of the Panel, the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as the Complainant’s official logo is used without permission. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant.

As such, the Panel believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv) and there is no need to consider the question of whether the Domain Name is part of a pattern of activity involving other websites about which there is limited information.

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 Domain Name <turkiyeg4s.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: November 26, 2019

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/