Genpact Luxembourg S.A.R.L. v. Domain Administrator / See PrivacyGuardian.org
Claim Number: FA2010001917712
Complainant is Genpact Luxembourg S.A.R.L. (“Complainant”), represented by John L. Slafsky of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, California, USA. Respondent is Domain Administrator / See PrivacyGuardian.org (“Respondent”), Arizona, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <wearegenpact.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 20, 2020; the Forum received payment on October 20, 2020.
On October 21, 2020, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <wearegenpact.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On October 22, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 12, 2020 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@wearegenpact.com. Also on October 22, 2020, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 18, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <wearegenpact.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GENPACT mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <wearegenpact.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <wearegenpact.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant is a global services firm that offers technology solutions for businesses. Complainant holds a registration for the GENPACT mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,610,355, registered Apr. 21, 2005).
Respondent registered the <wearegenpact.com> domain name on December 22, 2019, and uses it to divert Internet traffic from Complainant to Respondent’s website featuring pornographic content.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the GENPACT mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through Complainant’s registration with the USPTO. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <wearegenpact.com> domain name contains Complainant’s mark and adds a gTLD and the letters “weare.” These changes fail to sufficiently distinguish the domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain as the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <wearegenpact.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GENPACT mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <wearegenpact.com> domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its GENPACT mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Domain Administrator/See PrivacyGuardian.org.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name); see also CheapCaribbean.com, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA1411001589962 (Forum Jan. 1, 2015) (“The Panel notes that the WHOIS information merely lists a privacy service as registrant. In light of Respondent’s failure to provide any evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds there is no basis to find Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”); see also Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the <wearegenpact.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as the disputed domain name resolves to a pornographic website. Using a confusingly similar domain name to host a pornographic website is a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Karen Koehler v. Hiroshi Ishiura/ Lifestyle Design Inc., FA1730673 (Forum June 1, 2017) (holding that “Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial fair use because Respondent uses the domain name to host a pornographic website.”). Complainant provides screenshots of Respondent’s pornographic website at <wearegenpact.com>. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the <wearegenpact.com> domain name in bad faith, as Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert internet traffic from Complainant to Respondent’s own website featuring pornographic content for Respondent’s financial gain. Using a confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet users to a respondent’s pornographic website for a respondent’s financial gain demonstrates bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (a)(iii). See Gen. Media Commc’ns, Inc. v. Vine Ent., FA 96554 (Forum Mar. 26, 2001) (finding bad faith where a competitor of the complainant registered and used a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s PENTHOUSE mark to host a pornographic web site); see also Molson Canada 2005 v. JEAN LUCAS / DOMCHARME GROUP, FA1412001596702 (Forum Feb. 10, 2015) (“Further, Respondent’s diversion of the domain names to adult-oriented sites is registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wearegenpact.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: November 18, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page