WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Mycartis N.V. v. Jinsoo Yoon

Case No. D2017-0252

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Mycartis N.V. of Ghent, Belgium, represented by Cabinet Laurent & Charras, France.

The Respondent is Jinsoo Yoon of Daegu, Republic of Korea.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <mycartis.com> is registered with DropCatch.com LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 9, 2017. On February 9, 2017, 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 February 15, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 7, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 8, 2017. On March 9, 2017, the Complainant made further submission to the Center.

The Center appointed Jonas Gulliksson as the sole panelist in this matter on March 20, 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 the registered owner of the following trademark registrations:

- Swiss Trademark MYCARTIS No. 660 597, filed on April 22, 2014, and registered in classes 5, 10, 42 and 44;

- International Registration MYCARTIS No. 1215105, registered on June 25, 2014, under priority of the Swiss trademark MYCARTIS No. 660 597 designating Australia, European Union, India, Japan, Turkey and United States of America in classes 5, 10, 42, and 44; and

- Canadian trademark application MYCARTIS No. 1675818, filed on May 6, 2014, in classes 5, 10, 42 and 44, under priority of the Swiss trademark MYCARTIS No. 660 597.

The disputed domain name was registered February 4, 2017 and resolves to a pay-per-click website and was offered for sale for 4,950 USD.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant mainly alleges the following.

The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s prior trademarks MYCARTIS.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. A search on Google with the term “mycartis” only shows websites related to the Complainant. The only use the Respondent has made of the disputed domain name is to create a pay-per click page and to offer it for sale by an auction. The Respondent has not been licensed or otherwise permitted in any way by the Complainant to use its trademarks.

The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent has attempted to disrupt the Complainant’s business and divert Internet users who are searching for the Complainant’s services from the Complainant’s genuine website, it has also prevented the Complainant from reflecting the MYCARTIS mark in a corresponding domain name with international generic and popular gTLD (generic Top-Level domain extension “.com”. The Respondent has been involved in several UDRP cases in which the domain names have been transferred to the Complainant. The Respondent has registered 8 447 domain names with his email address […]@gmail.com.

The Complainant finally alleges that another indication of bad faith is that the disputed domain name was registered for the purpose of selling or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name to the Complainant or to competitors of the Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of any documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name. The Respondent has offered to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant for 15,000 USD.

After the case was submitted the Complainant has submitted supplementary evidence consisting of an offer to sell the disputed domain name for 3,000 EUR on February 11, 2017.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove all three of the following elements:

(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety with the addition of the gTLD “.com”. It is well-established among UDRP panels that the gTLD “.com” is not distinguishing. The Panel therefore finds that the first requirement of the Policy is fulfilled.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

In cases when a Respondent fails to present a response, the Complainant is still required to make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known as “Mycartis” and is not making a noncommercial and fair use of the domain name. The Respondent has not been licensed, or otherwise permitted in any way by the Complainant to use its trademark. The Respondent has not proven otherwise. The Panel therefore finds the requirements of the second element of the Policy fulfilled.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant’s registered trademarks all predates the disputed domain name and it is not probable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant and the trademark MYCARTIS. Further, the use of pay-per-click links related to the Complainant and its competitors and the Respondent’s offers to sell the disputed domain name are indicators of use in bad faith. The circumstances presented by the Complainant and the submitted evidence, e.g. the lack of substantial use and the offers to sell at a high price, therefore supports a finding of bad faith. The Panel finds that the third requirement of the Policy is fulfilled.

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 <mycartis.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Jonas Gulliksson
Sole Panelist
Date: April 3, 2017