The Complainant provides services hosting of computer applications for clients using the SOUNDEON trademark and service mark in which it claims registered rights established by its ownership of the United States trademark registration described above.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on January 15, 2018.<\/p>\n
The Complainant’s registered its SOUNDEON service mark registered on November 20, 2018.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was updated on January 16, 2024.<\/p>\n
The Complainant has adduced uncontested evidence archived in the WayBack Machine, that it controlled and used the disputed domain name as its website address in the years 2018 and 2020.<\/p>\n
The Complainant has also adduced uncontested evidence that on 25 June 2024, the Respondent caused or permitted the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that was almost identical to the Complainant’s archived website and purported to offer the disputed domain name for sale to the public for USD $250.00.<\/p>\n
There is no information available about the Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint, the Registrar’s WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by the Center or details of the registration of the disputed domain name in the course of this proceeding.<\/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 name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
The Complainant<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Complainant claims rights in the SOUNDEON mark established by its ownership of the abovementioned United States registered service mark and contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Complainant firstly alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the SOUNDEON mark.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
It is argued that for the purpose of determining whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark, the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) <.com> is inconsequential. According to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”), section 1.11, the applicable Top Level Domain (“TLD”) in a domain name (e.g., <.com>, <.club>, <.nyc>) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Complainant next alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name explaining that the disputed domain name was initially purchased and managed by the representative of the Complainant identified in an annex to the Complaint.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Complainant adds that due to an oversight, the registration of the disputed domain name was allowed to lapse when it expired, becoming available for purchase by the Respondent. In support of this assertion the Complainant has provided copies of purchase receipts of the disputed domain name illustrating that the Complainant owned the disputed domain name within the time period between 2018 and 2022.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In arguing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name the Complainant further submits and alleges that:<\/p>\n
furthermore, as shown by a comparison of screen captures of an archive page from the Complainant’s website when it controlled the disputed domain name in 2018 and 2020, and the website to which the disputed domain name resolved on 25 June 2024 when controlled by the Respondent, which are exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for the purposes of infringing on the copyright and the trademark rights of the Complainant;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, as a legal or a natural person cannot become known through the unlawfully replicating the website of another person and using the trademark of the replicated website;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
the aforementioned observations clearly indicate that the disputed domain name is not and has not been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, but on the contrary, it is used for mala fide purposes, i.e., a copyright and trademark infringement;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
<\/p>\n
The Complainant next alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, and its principal arguments are as follows:<\/p>\n
The Complainant’s SOUNDEON trademark was registered in 2018, however the Respondent obtained the disputed domain name in 2022, so it follows that at the time of registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent was or should have been aware of the Complainant’s mark.<\/p>\n
The copyright and trademark infringements illustrated by the exhibited screen captures of the Complainant’s archived website and the website to which the disputed domain name currently resolves, also clearly demonstrate that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s mark at the time when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
By publishing an unauthorized copy of the Complainant’s website, it is clear that the Respondent is wilfully, knowingly, and openly attempting to attract, users to its website for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s SOUNDEON mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or the products or services provided through that website.
<\/p>\n
The Respondent<\/b>
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>",
"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).<\/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 name (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 name has been registered and is 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>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "James Bridgeman" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-07-30 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant is the owner of United States registered trademark SOUNDEON, registration number 5,613,625 registered on the Principal Register on November 20 2018 for services in international class 42.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "soundeon.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }