The Complainant, Paysend Group Limited, is a FinTech company which specialises in global money services. It states that it was the first FinTech project to introduce international card-to-card transfers, allowing connections between 12 billion credit cards globally and between credit cards from different companies. The Complainant’s business was started in 2017 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that it currently serves over 7 million customers and 17,000 SME’s, and operates in more than 150 countries around the world. It has also won several awards and is recognised as one of the leading global non-bank money transfer services.<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that it owns multiple domain names, consisting, inter alia<\/em>, the PAYSEND mark, such as <paysend.com>, <paysend.io>, <paysend.me>. Its trademarks are also used in social media, for example <facebook.com\/paysendcom>, <youtube.com\/c\/Paysend\/featured>, <instagram.com\/paysendglobal>.<\/p>\n The disputed domain names were registered by the Respondent on March 6, 2022 and March 11, 2022 and resolve to websites with Pay-Per-Click (PPC) links, some of which relate to the Complainant’s competitors.<\/p>",
"other_legal_proceedings": " 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: COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the PAYSEND mark on the basis that the disputed domain names consist of misspelled mark and the top-level domain name suffix (“TLDs”) “.com” and are insufficient to avoid the finding of confusingly similarity with its PAYSEND mark.<\/p>\n The Complainant also argues that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has not acquired any rights in a trademark or trade name corresponding to the disputed domain names. In addition, the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and the Complainant did not license or authorize the Respondent to use the PAYSEND mark.<\/p>\n The Complainant further asserts that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith as the Respondent should have known of the Complainant’s PAYSEND mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain names. The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent has targeted the Complainant before (see CAC Case No. 104796) and that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its mark.<\/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 A. Consolidation<\/p>\n Under paragraph. 10 (e) of the UDRP Rules a Panel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules.<\/p>\n Pursuant to question 4.11.2 of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions 3.0, “Where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario.”<\/p>\n The Complainant requests to consolidate the complaint in respect of all nine (9) disputed domain names against the Respondents based on the following reasons: Having considered the above factors, the Panel considers that, in the circumstances, the domain names are subject to common control and consolidation is fair and equitable to the parties, and also procedurally efficient.<\/p>\n B. Language of Proceedings<\/p>\n Paragraph 11 of the Rules provides that:<\/p>\n “(a) Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.”<\/p>\n The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain names is Chinese.<\/p>\n The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for the following reasons:<\/p>\n The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.<\/p>\n The Panel cites the following with approval: “Thus, the general rule is that the parties may agree on the language of the administrative proceeding. In the absence of this agreement, the language of the Registration Agreement shall dictate the language of the proceeding. However, the Panel has the discretion to decide otherwise having regard to the circumstances of the case. The Panel’s discretion must be exercised judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties taking into consideration matters such as command of the language, time and costs. It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her abilities to articulate the arguments for the case.” (See Groupe Auchan v. xmxzl<\/em>, WIPO Case No. DCC2006‑0004).<\/p>\n Having considered the above factors, the Panel determines that English be the language of the proceeding. The Panel agrees that the Respondent appear to be familiar with the English language, taking into account the Respondent’s selection of the English-language domain names and use of the disputed domain names in connection with website in the English language. In the absence of an objection by the Respondent, the Panel does not find it procedurally efficient to have the Complainant translate the Complaint and evidence into Chinese.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Jonathan Agmon"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2023-01-31 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademarks worldwide, including but not limited to the following:<\/p>\n - United States Trademark Registration No. 4995580 for PAYSEND (device), registered on October 13, 2015;<\/p>\n - United States Trademark Registration No. 4911441 for PaySend, registered on April 10, 2015;<\/p>\n - International Registration No. 1539382 for PAYSEND Moent for the future, registered on May 30, 2020;<\/p>\n - International Trademark Registration No. 1251936 for PaySend, registered on April 10, 2015;<\/p>\n - International Trademark Registration No. 1284999 for “PAYSEND” word mark registered on October 13, 2015; and <\/p>\n - International Trademark Registration No. 1284999 for PAYSEND (device), registered on October 13, 2015.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"oaysend.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"paaysend.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"paydend.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"paysebd.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"payseend.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"paysrnd.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"payswnd.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"patsend.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"payaend.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}
<\/p>\n\n
\n