PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:
COMPLAINANT:
The Complainant is the general manager of Global Info SRL, which company owned the disputed domain name to host the website at http://www.AudioEnglish.net from August 2005 until March 12, 2013. Global Info SRL used the domain name and the term AUDIOENGLISH.NET for providing paid, subscription based online access to a database of English-learning resources and courses, online access to free English-learning resources and free access to an English language dictionary with over 140,000 entries targeted at learners of English from all over the world. AUDIOENGLISGH.NET is not registered as a trademark, but the Complainant alleges to have established common law trademark rights in such term.
On March 12, 2013 the website under the disputed domain name stopped working because the DNS records were changed by a cybercriminal (probably the Respondent) who gained full control over the disputed domain name. The Complainant has had contact with the Respondent, who has made an offer to sell the domain name to the Complainant for a sum far above the price that is usually paid to register a domain name. Therefore, there are circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered (or acquired) the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the AUDIOENGLISH.NET mark, for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name.
Further, the disputed domain name audioenglish.net links to an advertisement parking website, with an ultimate link to worddictionary.com.au, so that is clear that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to mislead and attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or to another on-line location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of service on Respondent’s website or on another location.
The Respondent further appears to have used a fake address, because according to the US Postal Service website there is no town called Bergen in Connecticut. Furthermore, according to the same website, the postal code 45788 points to Whipple, Ohio. It is therefore unclear if the name of the Respondent is the name of a real person or it is only a fake identity created by the hacker of the disputed domain name.
Given the fact that there are circumstances indicating that the Respondent or the hacker impersonating the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name by fraud for the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant, breaching not only one but all the terms of the UDRP article: “Evidence of Registration and Use in Bad Faith”, the Complainant ask the Panelist to require that any Response from the Respondent should be accompanied by a copy of a proper, government-issued ID document of the Respondent.
The Panelists should keep in mind that, without such a copy of proper identification document(s), the hacker may submit a Response by email only to delay the resolution of the dispute, for the purpose of creating even bigger losses to the business of the Complainant.
Also, the Panelists should take into consideration the fact that the Complainant states that the speed of decision on his Complaint is of major importance for his business.
NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.
|