Westmore · UDRP DecisionHidglobal.biz
The Panel ordered transfer of <hidglobal.biz>. It found the domain identical to the HID GLOBAL mark, found no rights or legitimate interests because the Respondent lacked authorization and offered no evidence supporting such rights, and found bad-faith registration and use based on the Respondent's awareness of the mark and use of the domain for related pay-per-click links intended to profit from misleading traffic.
The timeline behind hidglobal.biz
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind hidglobal.biz — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates two recurring UDRP patterns: a subsidiary may establish standing through its relationship with and authorization from a parent trademark owner, and an exact-match domain used for trademark-related pay-per-click links can support findings of both targeting and commercial bad faith. The Respondent’s default did not automatically determine the case, but left the Complainant’s evidence of authorization, lack of legitimate interest, prior rights, and commercial diversion unrebutted.
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 HID Global Corporation v. GaoGou, Yerect International Limited Case No. D2014-0346 1. The Parties The Complainant is HID Global Corporation of Irvine, California, United States of America, represented by Cohausz & Florack, Germany. The Respondent is GaoGou, Yerect International Limited of Toronto, Canada. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <hidglobal.biz> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 6, 2014. On March 6, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 7, 2014, 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. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 11, 2014. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 March 12, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 1, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 2, 2014. The Center appointed Eduardo Machado as the sole panelist in this matter on April 9, 2014. 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 The Complainant is a manufacturer of secure identity solutions and is owned by Assa Abloy AB, a Swedish supplier and manufacturer of locks and doors opening solutions. The Complainant and its parent company own a family of trademarks starting with the element “hid”. The Complainant has confirmed that it is duly authorized to use the marks owned by Assa Abloy AB. Assa Abloy AB is the owner of Community trademark registration No. 005352951 for the HID GLOBAL mark, with priority of April 4, 2006, filed on October 3, 2006, and registered on August 14, 2007. The Complainant’s parent company owns registered trademark rights in the HID GLOBAL mark in many jurisdictions, including the European Union and the United States. The Complainant also uses its trademarks in connection with the promotion and marketing of its services on its various domain names, e.g. <hidglobal.com>, <hidglobal.co.uk>, <hidglobal.de> and <hidglobal.se>. The disputed domain name was registered on August 13, 2013. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant basically claims that: The disputed domain name is identical to the trademark registration for the HID GLOBAL mark, the Complainant’s domain names and company name. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name which was registered without authorization. The Respondent has registered and has been using the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks or service marks in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or no legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant is wholly owned by Assa Abloy AB, the owner of the HID GLOBAL mark. In considering the right of the Complainant to bring forward its current Complaint, the Panel has taken into account a number of circumstances. The Panel acknowledges that in previous instances, UDRP panels have in certain cases been prepared to infer the existence of a license and/or authorization from the particular facts. Additionally, the fact that the Complainant operates under the “HID Global” name and appears to own a number of other trademarks containing the element “HID”, is persuasive to the Panel as well. As a result of these facts, the Panel finds that the Complainant has a sufficient basis to rely on rights in the HID GLOBAL mark for the purposes of this Complaint. To determine whether a domain name and a trademark are identical or confusingly similar, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) that composes the domain name shall be typically ignored. For that reason, in connection with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name <hidglobal.biz> is identical to the trademark HID GLOBAL in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel finds that the Respondent is not a licensee, a retailer or in any other way was authorized by the Complainant to use the mark HID GLOBAL. Likewise, the Respondent was not authorized to apply for or use a domain name encompassing any of the Complainant’s and its parent company’s trademarks. The Respondent has not replied to the Complaint and has not presented any other evidence or elements to justify any rights or legitimate interests in connection with the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel has found no indication that any of the circumstances described in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy could apply to the present case. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith HID GLOBAL mark was used in its original form by the Respondent to register the disputed domain name. The Respondent did not add any letter or word that could properly distinguish the disputed domain name from the trademark HID GLOBAL. Moreover, the Panel is convinced on the evidence that the Respondent was aware that such trademark was already registered and being used by the Complainant, not only due to the numerous trademark registrations, but also to the fact that since September 2, 2005, the Complainant owns the identical domain name under the gTLD “.com”, which it uses in connection with the promotion and marketing of its services. At the time of the filing of the Complaint, the Respondent seems to be using the recognition of the trademark HID GLOBAL to earn profit from web traffic by attracting consumers interested in the Complainant’s services to a webpage with pay-per-click links related to the Complainant’s services. This practice of misleading the consumers to believe they are accessing the Complainant’s site in order to make commercial gain configures bad faith, as decided in many previous UDRP cases. In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel concludes that the Complainant has proven the Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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 <hidglobal.biz> be transferred to the Complainant. Eduardo Machado Sole Panelist Date: April 17, 2014
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around hidglobal.biz
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.