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

Vue Entertainment Holdings (UK) Limited v. Lee SuYeon

Case No. D2021-1241

1. The Parties

Complainant is Vue Entertainment Holdings (UK) Limited, United Kingdom (the “UK), represented by Bird & Bird LLP, United Kingdom.

Respondent is Lee SuYeon, Republic of Korea.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <vue-flix.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 22, 2021. On April 22, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On April 22, 2021, 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 Complainant on May 3, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on May 6, 2021.

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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 7, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 27, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on June 1, 2021.

The Center appointed Lawrence K. Nodine as the sole panelist in this matter on June 28, 2021. 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

Complainant operates cinemas at over 220 sites (offering 1997 screens) in many countries, including the UK, Ireland, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Italy, Poland, and Lithuania.

Complainant owns registrations for the trademark VUE for a range of goods and services, including digital streaming and related services. The VUE trademark is registered in many jurisdictions including the European Union (EU registration No. 12455549 filed December 20, 2013, registered on September 18, 2015) and the United Kingdom (UK Registration No. 00912455549 filed December 20, 2013, registered on September 18, 2015).

Complainant is also the registrant of a number of domain names, including <myvue.com> and <vue-international.com>, which resolve to Complainant’s website, through which Complainant operates its cinema business, including functionality for taking bookings for film screenings.

The Disputed Domain Name was first registered on January 15, 2021. The Disputed Domain Name leads to Respondent’s website, where Respondent offers to sell entertainment, television and film streaming packages. “Vue-Flix” appears in large letters at the top of Respondent’s website homepage.

Respondent’s website lists streaming packages for sale in British Pounds.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that it satisfies Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) because the Disputed Domain Name wholly incorporates its registered trademark VUE and that the addition of “-flix” does not prevent confusion.

Complainant contends that it satisfies Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii) because Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name.

Complainant contends that it satisfies Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii) because the evidence permits an inference that Respondent was aware of Complainant and its rights when he registered the Disputed Domain Name intending to create a false impression of association with Complainant in order to defraud members of the public and attract business away from Complainant. Complainant offers evidence that it is especially well-known in the United Kingdom and Ireland, where Complainant has 91 cinemas with over 870 screens.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the VUE trademark, as evidenced by its trademark registrations in the United Kingdom and the European Union. The Panel also finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VUE trademark, as it incorporates the trademark in its entirety. The addition of the term “-flix” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.

Accordingly, Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

As is described in the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1, “while the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of ‘proving a negative’, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.”

Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lack rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, which Respondent has not rebutted. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent’s use of the VUE mark in the Disputed Domain Names. There is no evidence of record showing that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. Moreover, there is no evidence that Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

The Panel also incorporates here its findings below under the third element.

Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Complainant registered its trademarks long before Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names. In addition, Complaint has submitted substantial evidence that VUE cinemas were well-known, especially in the United Kingdom. The Panel finds, especially given Respondent’s failure to respond to the allegations in the Complaint, that the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that Respondent more than likely knew of Complainant and its rights when it registered the Disputed Domain Name. Absent a benign explanation, this permits an inference of bad faith.

The Panel also finds that Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Respondent offers streaming services that Internet users would likely associate with Complainant’s cinemas. Respondent’s pricing of its services in British Pounds supports an inference that Respondent targeted customers in the United Kingdom where, the submitted evidence shows, Complainant is well-known. The Panel finds the evidence sufficient that Respondent has “intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [its] web site... by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.” Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv).

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 <vue-flix.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Lawrence K. Nodine
Sole Panelist
Date: July 13, 2021

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/