{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101660",
    "time_of_filling": "2017-11-29 11:17:50",
    "domain_names": [
        "wpupwork.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Aneta Jelenová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Upwork Inc."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "RiskIQ, Inc",
    "respondent": [
        "iFrux Technologies"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThrough its wholly-owned subsidiary, Complainant (\"Upwork\"), based in Silicon Valley with several offices across the United States and in Oslo, Norway, has connected approximately 13 million freelancers with over 5 million employers seeking on-demand talent. Providing companies with over 3,500 skills, millions of jobs are posted on Upwork's site via <upwork.com> annually, and freelancers annually earn more than a billion dollars through Upwork. \r\n\r\nAs of shortly before the disputed domain was created in December 2016, the Upwork site was already ranked as the 336th most popular website globally, 335th most popular in the United States, and 212th most popular site in India where Respondent resides. \r\n\r\nRespondent offers various services of the sort covered by the Complainant’s trademark;, specifically providing online publications, chat and e-mail support services to operators of websites running on installations of WordPress, where tickets are submitted via a WP Upwork CRM dashboard for remote online workers to track their commissioned WP projects collaboratively with their WP clients through online messaging, display of recent activity by WP client, calendaring, bill payments, reports, invoices, milestones, expenses.\r\n\r\nBy incorporating Complainant's mark in the disputed domain name to offer services covered by, or highly related to Complainant's mark as described above, a class of prospective clients of Respondent are likely to mistakenly believe that Upwork is a party to the dealings with Respondent, supervising its work, and\/or guaranteeing the quality, safety, or legality of its services, when that is not the case. Other prospective purchasers are likely to falsely believe at the very least, that the site has an affiliation with Complainant, or is sponsored or endorsed by Upwork. The site is also of poor quality with grammatical errors and inconsistencies, which is likely to tarnish the reputation of Complainant's mark.\r\n\r\nGiven the popularity of Complainant's trademark well before the disputed domain was created, it seems inconceivable based on the record, that Respondent registered the disputed domain name without prior knowledge of Complainant and its mark. In fact, Respondent's e-mail was used to log into Upwork this past summer using an account created in 2012. Further, it is unlikely Respondent was unaware the disputed domain name it chose could attract Internet users in a manner that is likely to create confusion for such users. Respondent's stylized WP UPWORK logo is even intended to closely mimic Complainant's stylized UPWORK logo both in terms of using script letters and substantially the same shade of green for the letters WP as Complainant uses for the UP portion of its logo. This suggests Respondent is likely using the domain name in bad-faith attempt to create confusion with Complainant's mark. \r\n\r\nComplainant through its authorized agent, actually sent an e-mail to Respondent objecting to its registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name to the UPWORK mark in which Complainant asserted Respondent fully knows Upwork has established rights. \r\n\r\nComplainant requested that Respondent confirm it would pick a new name and mark that does not include the UPWORK mark. Although an explanation by the Respondent was called for, not even a response was forthcoming. \r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None of which the Panel is aware.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\n",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i)of the Policy).",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy).",
    "bad_faith": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii)of the Policy).",
    "procedural_factors": "The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Matthew Harris"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-01-13 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Various registered trademarks either comprising or incorporating the text UPWORK including United States Reg. trademark No. 5,237,481 in Classes 9, 35, 36, 38, 41, and 42 for the standard character mark UPWORK filed on February 23, 2015 and claiming a priority filing date of 26 August 2014 from an earlier Icelandic trademark.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "WPUPWORK.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}