DECISION

 

Genesys Cloud Services, Inc. v. ismail nihal azouzi / whatsnew

Claim Number: FA2507002168855

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Genesys Cloud Services, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Neil Peluchette of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Indiana, USA. Respondent is ismail nihal azouzi / whatsnew ("Respondent"), Morocco.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <genesys.london>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 30, 2025; Forum received payment on July 30, 2025.

 

On July 31, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <genesys.london> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 August 1, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 21, 2025 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@genesys.london. Also on August 1, 2025, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On August 21, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts trademark rights in GENESYS. Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is "virtually identical and confusingly similar" to its trademark.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Further, Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

In particular, Complainant states that it is has provided software and software-related consultancy services under the trademark GENESYS since at least 1994 but that on July 4, 2025, Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith and used it in connection with a copycat website. Complainant states that when it became aware of this it filed a

DMCA takedown notice for removal of the copycat website, which was successful and so evidence of the copycat website is no longer available.

 

B.       Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:

1.       Complainant provides software and software-related consultancy services by reference to the trademark, GENESYS; and

2.       the disputed domain name was registered on July 4, 2025, using a privacy service to shield the name of Respondent.

 

DISCUSSION

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.

 

Paragraph 4(a)(i) does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademark rights (see, for example, Microsoft Corporation v. Story Remix / Inofficial, FA 1734934 (Forum July 10, 2017). A trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)).  Complainant asserts ownership and registration of GENESYS (with and without added matter) in the United States and the United Kingdom. The extracts from the United Kingdom register show composite marks which present a weaker case when it comes to comparison with the disputed domain name. The United States registrations for GENESYS (solus) shown in evidence are in the name of Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories, Inc., not Complainant. The Complaint states, without attempting to show, that Complainant was previously known as Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories, Inc.

 

It has been said in numerous UDRP decisions that proof of trademark rights is a threshold issue under the Policy and so another panelist may have dismissed the Complaint at this point. However, the Panel has taken the added step of referencing United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") records and found that USPTO Reg. No. 2,249,031, for the mark GENESYS was registered on June 1, 1999, and currently stands in the name of Complainant.  The Panel therefore finds proof of trademark rights.

 

As stated, Complainant's submission is that the disputed domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to its trademark. Virtual identity is not the language of the Policy but it has been accepted that a domain name and trademark are identical for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy if they differ only by the addition of the gTLD (see, for example, Grp., LLC v. bai wentao, FA 1286108 (Forum Nov. 16, 2009) holding that even after the "addition of a ccTLD the disputed domain name is still identical to Complainant's mark."); Abt Elecs., Inc. v. Ricks, FA 904239 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) ("The Panel also finds that Respondent's <abt.com> domain name is identical to Complainant's ABT mark since addition of a generic top-level domain ("gTLD") is irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.")). 

 

The Panel therefore finds that the requirements of the first element of the Policy are satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

 

(i)                      before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

 

(ii)                      you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

(iii)                      you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000)).

 

There is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights of its own. The name of the domain name owner does not carry any suggestion that Respondent might be commonly known by the domain name. There is no evidence of use of the domain name, something discussed shortly, and so there is nothing to indicate use of the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

 

A prima facie case has been made (see, for example, Kohler Co. v xi long chen, FA 1737910 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) ("Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain.  Respondent's <kohler-corporation.com> resolves to an inactive webpage displaying the message "website coming soon!") and so the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests.  Absent a Response, the onus is not met and so the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and used in bad faith.  

 

There is no evidence of use of the disputed domain name. As set out earlier, Complainant's submission is that the domain name was used in connection with a copycat website but that in consequence of a successful DMCA takedown notice, evidence of the copycat website is no longer available.

 

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a US statute supporting a takedown request, usually of a service provider, to remove online content which is said to infringe copyright.  There is no evidence of that request or of the material which presumably supported it. There is nothing provided from the Internet archive, Wayback Machine, and the Panel's use of that resource shows no page captures. The Complaint relies only on assertion and on a screenshot of Internet search results for <genesys.london> which may reasonable infer use but does not prove use in bad faith.

 

In these administrative proceeding the Panel may take into Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw reasonable inferences pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, but the Panel must deny relief where a complaint relies on unsubstantiated claims which are fundamental to the Policy, such as proof of use (see, for example, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; 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")).  

 

Complainant is professionally represented. Proof of use of the disputed domain name to support a copycat website, or in some other bad faith manner is not only essential to Complainant's success, but within its control alone to adduce. The Panel cannot assist Complainant where that evidence has not been made available. The Panel finds that Complainant has not shown use in bad faith and so has not satisfied the third and final element of the Policy.

 

DECISION

Having failed to establish one of the elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <genesys.london> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

 

Debrett G Lyons, Panelist

Dated: August 25, 2025