WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Payoneer, Inc. v. Jurgen Neeme

Case No. D2020-0137

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Payoneer, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Jurgen Neeme, Estonia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <payoneer.club> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 20, 2020. On January 20, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 20, 2020, 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 January 23, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 12, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 13, 2020.

The Center appointed Andrew Brown Q.C. as the sole panelist in this matter on February 26, 2020. 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 states that it is a financial services company founded in the United States in 2005. It asserts that it specializes in providing online money transfer digital payment services particularly facilitating multi-national B2B payments. In this respect, the Complainant states that it processes cross border payments in over 200 countries, deals with over 150 local currencies and has over 4 million users as well as supporting over 35 languages. The Complainant also states that it has 14 physical locations around the world including in the United States, European Union, China, Japan, Republic of Korea, Philippines, Bangladesh and India.

The Complainant states that its online presence is of paramount importance to its reputation. It uses its official website “www.payoneer.com” to provide information about its services under the PAYONEER brand. Additionally, online users can sign up to use its services at that website.

The Complainant claims to be one of the leaders in its industry and states that it has acquired wide-spread consumer goodwill as a result of its 14 years use of the PAYONEER brand since 2005.

It also states that it has trademark registrations for PAYONEER in numerous jurisdictions including the following: