WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Hansard Global PLC v. Qinn Xin, Asia Trading Hub

Case No. D2018-0512

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Hansard Global PLC of Douglas, Isle of Man, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented by Ladas & Parry LLP, United States of America.

The Respondent is Qinn Xin, Asia Trading Hub of Singapore.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <hansard.asia> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 7, 2018. On March 7, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 7, 2018, 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 March 16, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 5, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 6, 2018.

The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on April 20, 2018. 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 company registered under the laws of the Isle of Man, and, through its wholly owned subsidiary Hansard International, has been providing innovative financial products and services for international clients since 1987. The Complainant has been listed on the London Stock Exchange since 2006, and as of June 1, 2015, Hansard International had USD 1 billion of assets under administration. It provides services for over 40,000 clients across the globe, including its branch in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, which handles company matters within the Southeast Asian region where the Respondent is located.

The Complainant owns the word mark HANSARD, registered in International Class 36 for various financial services in the United Kingdom (No. UK00001386845 registered on September 25, 1992), in the European Union (No. 257980 registered on January 8, 1999), and in Malaysia (No. 2016067241 registered on September 6, 2017).

According to the Registrar, the Domain Name was registered on January 31, 2018. According to evidence filed by the Complainant and at the time of drafting this decision, the Domain Name resolves to a website that appears to be an unauthorized copy of the Complainant’s website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant provides trademark registrations, and submits that its trademark is identical to the Domain Name as it wholly incorporates the mark. The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.asia” serves no purpose in distinguishing the Domain Name from the Complainant’s HANSARD mark because gTLDs are a functional necessity rather than an arbitrary trademark choice.

The Complainant argues that the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way, or licensed or otherwise authorized to use the Complainant’s trademarks. The Respondent is not making a fair or legitimate noncommercial use of the Domain Name. On the contrary, the Domain Name resolves to a website for “Hansard Asia PLC”. It appears to be a copy and paste job from the Complainant’s genuine website found at “www.hansard.com”. The Complainant never authorized the Respondent to register the Domain Name or to create a website using the Complainant’s registered trademark, copyrighted content, and mimicking the overall look and feel of the Complainant’s site. The Complainant is concerned that its customers will be contacted by the Respondent and will access the spoof site assuming it is a genuine site connected to the Complainant’s official site, and enter their login details, which will be fraudulently collected and misused to manipulate the customers’ accounts on the genuine website. The Complainant concludes that the Respondent is exploiting the Domain Name in a fraudulent way.

As to bad faith, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has used the Domain Name to divert Internet traffic intended for the Complainant to the Respondent’s website in which the Respondent falsely claims being affiliated or associated with the Complainant and where the website mirrors much of the content and look and feel of the Complainant’s main website. Even if the Respondent has not yet perpetrated a fraud or spoofing swindle on the Complainant’s unsuspecting customers, the unauthorized copying of the Complainant’s website will lead others to mistakenly believe that the Complainant has licensed, endorsed, or otherwise permitted such use by the Respondent and will confer on the Respondent a commercial gain at the Complainant’s expense.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark HANSARD. The trademark is identical to the Domain Name as it wholly incorporates the mark with no additional elements. For the purpose of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the gTLD “.asia”.

The Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register a domain name containing its trademark or otherwise make use of its mark. Based on the evidence, the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way. As documented by the Complainant, the Domain Name resolves to a website that appears to be an unauthorized copy of the Complainant’s genuine website. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of the Policy. As stressed by the Complainant, it points to possible fraudulent use.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Based on the Complainant’s market presence and the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name, it is likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademarks and its business when the Respondent registered the Domain Name.

The Complainant has evidenced that the Domain Name resolves to a website that appears to be an unauthorized copy of the Complainant’s genuine website. It points to possible future fraudulent use, including phishing attacks to the Complainant’s customers or employees.

Be that as it may, the current use alone - the Respondent diverts Internet traffic intended for the Complainant to the Respondent’s website where the Respondent falsely leaves the impression of being affiliated or associated with the Complainant - constitutes bad faith pursuant to the Policy. The bad faith is supported by the fact that the Respondent has not responded to the Complaint.

For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of 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 Domain Name <hansard.asia> be transferred to the Complainant.

Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: April 25, 2018