Osprey Packs, Inc. (“Complainant”) designs, sources, distributes, sells and markets outdoor backpacks since its foundation in 1974. Complainant specializes in technical adventure backpacks that can endure long stretches of travel under difficult conditions. Complainant’s products are known for their good quality and innovative features and are sold on its domain <osprey.com> which was created in April of 1999.<\/p>\n
The non-appearing Respondent has registered 59 domain names and is trying to “corner the market” in domain names that reflect the Complainant’s trademarks, registering many variations containing its trademarks in combination with generic terms related to Complainant’s products and\/or geographical terms which refer to a single country. Respondent passes itself off as Complainant even down to its design logo and copyright notification. If consumers were to access the websites they would be beguiled into believing they had reached Complainant resulting, most likely, to their economic injury and consequential reputational harm to Complainant.<\/p>\n
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the Disputed Domain Names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/p>\n
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:<\/p>\n
COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n
The Complainant owns rights in the word marks OSPREY and the figurative mark OSPREY (an image of “birds and bats in flight or with outstretched wings”). The non-appearing Respondent has registered 59 domain names that resolve to websites that pass themselves off as Complainant. All of the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's marks differing only in adding geographical locations and descriptive words to the domain names. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names and is creating injury to both Complainant and consumers by resolving to websites that mimic the Complainant's official website at <osprey.com>.<\/p>\n
To consumers the Disputed Domain Names will be seen as resolving to authentic websites with authentic goods, while in fact they are passing off as the Complainant by featuring the Complainant's trademarks and the figurative design positioned as represented in Complainant's authentic website, and even to the extent of placing a false and misleading copyright notice in its footer; and claiming it owns copyrights in the content \/ products offered on the websites. Use of the Complainant's marks to imitate the Complainant's genuine website cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent has not been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names. The Respondent is not making legitimate, non-commercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Names<\/p>\n
The Disputed Domain Names have evidently been registered in batches by the Respondent. The first of 29 domain names have been registered on March 15, 2022 and the second batch of 29 domain names have been registered between June 20 and 29, 2022 (just 9 days apart!). Complainant also notes that a new domain <osprey-southafrica.com> was registered on September 8, 2022, just a few weeks ago. Complainant has exclusive trademark rights which predate the registration of the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n
The Respondent has registered the domain names in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the Complainant's marks in the Disputed Domain Names, and engaged in a pattern of such conduct. It is clear from the contents of the websites that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the trademarks prior to the registration of the Disputed Domain Names. The impersonation and passing off as outlets of the Complainant in the different countries is misleading and confuses consumers, and amounts to abusive registration.<\/p>\n
RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
Respondent did not submit a response in this proceeding and as noted further below is hiding its identity behind a proxy.<\/p>", "rights": "
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Disputed Domain Names are 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).<\/p>", "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 Names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "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.<\/p>\n
PRELIMINARY MATTERS - NO RESPONSE<\/p>\n
The Complainant requests the language of this administrative proceeding be in English for the following reasons:
- The Disputed Domain Names are all formed by words in the Latin script and not in Chinese characters.
- All of the Disputed Domain Names include the English-language trademark(s).
- All of the Disputed Domain Names are in the international .com zone.Respondent uses English on a large number of the Disputed Domain Names, demonstrating that Respondent is familiar with the English language.
- The WHOIS data mentions: “Registrar URL: http:\/\/www.alibabacloud.com, meaning that Respondent used the Registrar’s English language website to register the domain names. Furthermore, the registrar, Alibaba Singapore, uses an English language domain name registration agreement (https:\/\/www.alibabacloud.com\/).
Requiring the Complainant to translate the Complaint into another language would create an undue burden and delay. Respondent has not brought forward any arguments that using the English language in this proceeding would not be fair and efficient.
The Panel concurs with Complainant. It is evident that Respondent is as fluent in English as it is in deceit. Accordingly, for the reasons Complainant states as well as the Panel's conclusion that the content of the websites to which the Disputed Domain Names resolve and Respondent's evident purpose of trafficking Complainant's mark by pretending to be Complainant is a clear violation of the Policy. Accordingly, the proceeding shall be in conducted in English. <\/p>\n
The Complainant requests consolidation of all the Disputed Domain Names into this single case. The Complainant asserts that all the Disputed Domain Names are owned or under the effective control of a single person or entity, or a group of individuals acting in concert.<\/p>\n
According to the provisions of paragraph 10(e) of the Rules, the Panel has the power to decide the consolidation of multiple domain names disputes. Further, paragraph 3(c) of the UDRP Rules provides that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.<\/p>\n
Complainant states that the Registrar's response, after Registrar Verification, has revealed that 58 out of 59 disputed domains are registered to the same Registrant: \"Web Commerce Communications Limited\", doing business as Webnic.cc. Webnic.cc is however simply a reseller of the Registrar's domain name registration services, it is not the beneficial owner of the domain names. Complainant states with regard to this proxy that: <\/p>\n
\"Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNIC, a leading Asian domain name registrar is expanding its services by partnering with Alibaba Cloud [...] As the first online channel reseller in the domain business of Alibaba Cloud, WebNIC aims to help bridge the technical gap of cloud computing [...]\". <\/p>\n
Complainant presents a cogent analysis of the proxy's role and the covering up of the beneficial owner of the Disputed Domain Names. It states that a reseller is simply reselling the service of the Registrar. Hence the Registration Data that is known to the Registrar has not been disclosed. Thus, the Registrar could and should have provided the details of the underlying Registrants. The failure to disclose the beneficial owner is in violation of the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data: Registrar Requirement: The Registrar MUST provide the UDRP provider with the full Registration Data for each of the specified domain names, upon the UDRP provider notifying the Registrar of the existence of a complaint [...]\" <\/p>\n
In principle, since the named Respondent is the same, it therefore does not seem that in the present case \"a complaint is filed against multiple respondents\" (which would make it necessary to consider whether or not it is more likely than not that all of the disputed domain names are under common ownership or control). <\/p>\n
In the case of a single holder, according to 3(c) of the UDRP Rules this would constitute a single case, no consolidation being necessary: \"(c) The complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder.\" <\/p>\n
However, Complainant shows with regards to <ospreyromania.com> that this disputed domain name should be considered to be owned or under the effective control of the same Respondent as the 58 other disputed domain names. Complainant refers to the common factors outlined below.<\/p>\n