Arab-health.org

The timeline behind arab-health.org

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Informa IP GmbH v. Jamal Al Kawasmi Case No. D2012-2044 1. The Parties The Complainant is Informa IP GmbH of Switzerland, represented by Ipulse IP Ltd, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Respondent is Jamal Al Kawasmi of Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <arab-health.org> is registered with OnlineNic, Inc. d/b/a China-Channel.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 16, 2012. On October 16, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 17, 2012, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 25, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was November 14, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 15, 2012. The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on November 23, 2012. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background A. Complainant The Complainant is a company incorporated in Switzerland and the owner of registrations in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for the trade mark ARAB HEALTH (the “Trade Mark”), and the applicant for registration of the Trade Mark in the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, each registration/application dating from June 2010. B. Respondent The Respondent is an individual apparently based in Saudi Arabia. C. The Disputed Domain Name The disputed domain name was registered on November 7, 2010. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant made the following submissions in the Complaint. The Complainant is the intellectual property holding company for the Informa group of companies, a leading international provider of specialist events and publications for academic, scientific and professional industries/organisations. One of the divisions of the Informa group is Arab Health. The Trade Mark has been used by the Complainant and the Informa group in relation to healthcare exhibitions and related publications for 38 years. Arab Health is the longest running healthcare exhibition and congress in the world. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not affiliated with or authorised by the Complainant in any way and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Complainant is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name has been linked to a website promoting the Jordan Healthcare 2012 International Conference and Expo (the “Website”). The Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in order to attract Internet users to the Website and obtain a commercial advantage from the Complainant’s reputation in the Trade Mark. For all of these reasons, the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration which predate the date of registration of the disputed domain name by over 30 years. The disputed domain name is identical with the Trade Mark. It is trite that, for the purposes of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, any punctuation marks contained in disputed domain names, such as hyphens, are to be disregarded. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfills the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of non-exhaustive circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name: (i) before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organisation) has been commonly known by the domain name even if the Respondent has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or (iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue. There is no evidence that the Complainant has authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the Trade Mark. The Complainant has prior rights in the Trade Mark which precede the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name by decades. There is therefore a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the burden is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption ( Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web , WIPO Case No. D2000-0624 ; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455 ). The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name is used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the disputed domain name has clearly been used, without authorisation from the Complainant, in order to attract Internet users to the Website. There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that the Complaint fulfils the second condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, the following conduct amounts to registration and use in bad faith on the part of the Respondent: “By using the domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location.” The Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in order to pass off the Website as a website of or licensed by the Complainant, for commercial gain. In particular, the Panel notes there is no disclaimer on the Website disclaiming any relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant. At some stage following the filing of the Complaint, the Website has been taken down by the Respondent. As at the date of this Decision, the disputed domain name is not being used by the Respondent. In all the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds this constitutes further evidence of bad faith. For the foregoing reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the third condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been satisfied. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <arab-health.org> be transferred to the Complainant. Sebastian M.W. Hughes Sole Panelist Dated: December 7, 2012

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.