WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

G4S Plc v. Muyou Chen, wer

Case No. D2020-0715

1. The Parties

The Complainant is G4S Plc, United Kingdom, represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Muyou Chen, wer, Philippines.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <g4snet.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 25, 2020. On March 25, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 27, 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 April 14, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 4, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 6, 2020. Due to an administrative oversight, the Respondent was given additional five days to indicate whether it would like to participate in the proceeding on May 6, 2020. No communication was received from the Respondent.

The Center appointed Jacob (Changjie) Chen as the sole panelist in this matter on May 20, 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 G4S Plc is a British security services company initially founded in 1901. The Complainant claims that it has been trading under “G4S” since 2004 and it provides security products, services and solutions across six continents and with operations in over 100 countries.

The Complainant owns rights upon numerous worldwide registrations of G4S trademark, including No. 885912 international trademark, registered on October 11, 2005; No. 3378800 the United States of America trademark, registered on February 5, 2008, and No. 015263064 European Union trademark, registered on September 20, 2016.

The Complainant owns domain names incorporating it G4S trademark, including <g4s.com> registered on December 1, 1999; <g4s.cn> registered on March 1, 2005; <g4s.in> registered on March 2, 2005 and <g4s.us> registered on November 17, 2004. The Complainant has been using these domain names to advertise its business.

According to the information disclosed by the Registrar, the Respondent is Muyou Chen, wer, located in the Philippines.

The disputed domain name was registered on February 15, 2020. According to the Complainant’s evidence, the disputed domain name previously resolved to an active website offering gambling and pornographic content. The disputed domain name now resolves to an inactive website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its G4S trademark. The additional term “net” is insufficient to differentiate the similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s G4S trademark.

The Complainant further contends that the Respondents does not own any G4S trademark. There is no evidence proving that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

The Complainant finally contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant owns rights upon numerous worldwide registrations of G4S trademark, which far predate the registration date of the disputed domain name (February 15, 2020). The Complainant has successfully established its rights upon G4S trademark.

It is well established that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.com” as a standard registration requirement is disregarded in the assessment of the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s G4S trademark.

The disputed domain name <g4snet.com> incorporates the Complainant’s G4S trademark in its entirety. Previous UDRP cases have established that incorporation of a complainant’s trademark in its entirety into a domain name is sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark. The addition of the term “net” after the Complainant’s G4S trademark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s G4S trademark. See BHP Billiton Innovation Pty Ltd v. Oloyi, WIPO Case No. D2017-0284.

Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s G4S trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The burden of production is hence shifted to the Respondent to rebut the Complainant’s contentions. In this case, the Respondent’s failure to submit a response to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy according to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1. See Construction Skills Certification Scheme Limited v. Mara Figueira, WIPO Case No. D2010-0947.

According to the Complainant’s evidence, the Respondent previously directed the disputed domain name to a website offering gambling and pornographic content. Currently, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website. The Panel views that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name cannot be considered as making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name nor using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that the disputed domain name was registered on February 15, 2020, far later than the registration date of the Complainant’s G4S trademark. Given the reputation of the Complainant and its G4S trademark, the Panel holds that the Respondent must have awareness of the Complainant’s trademark and/or business at the time of registering the disputed domain name, because a simple Internet search with key word “G4S” shows all top search results connecting to the Complainant. There appears to be a sole correlation between the G4S mark and the Complainant. Thus, without any rights or legitimate interests, the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name is indicative of bad faith.

The Panel observes that the disputed domain name resolved to a website offering gambling and pornographic content, and now the website is inactive. The Panel views that the Respondent’s purpose of using the disputed domain name is to attract Internet users who are not looking for a gambling and pornographic website but were instead looking for products and/or services associated with the Complainant and its G4S trademark. Therefore, the Panel holds that by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, by directing Internet users to its website. See Motorola, Inc. v. NewGate Internet, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0079.

Moreover, after commencement of this proceeding, the Respondent not only failed to respond to the Complainant’s contentions, but also directed the disputed domain name to an inactive website. The Panel views that the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name which constitutes the bad faith use of the disputed domain name under the circumstances of this case. See Revevol SARL v. Whoisguard Inc. / Australian Online Solutions, Domain Support, WIPO Case No. D2015-0379.

For the reasons above, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

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 <g4snet.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Jacob (Changjie) Chen
Sole Panelist
Date: June 1, 2020