Westmore · UDRP DecisionBizom.com
The Panel denied the Complaint concerning <bizom.com>. It found the Domain Name identical to Complainant’s registered BIZOM mark and concluded that Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests. However, Complainant failed to establish bad-faith registration because the Domain Name was registered in 2004, while the record indicated that Complainant did not begin using BIZOM until 2012. The Panel found that no BIZOM mark existed at the time of registration for Respondent to target.
The timeline behind bizom.com
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 bizom.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates the distinct temporal requirement of bad-faith registration. Even where a domain is identical to a complainant’s mark, the respondent lacks a demonstrated legitimate interest, and later conduct appears questionable, a complaint cannot succeed without evidence that the respondent targeted existing trademark rights when registering or acquiring the domain.
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 Mobisy Technologies Private Limited v. Ibrahim Kazanci Case No. D2019-0273 1. The Parties Complainant is Mobisy Technologies Private Limited of Bangalore, India, represented by Fox Mandal & Associates, India. Respondent is Ibrahim Kazanci of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, self-represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <bizom.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 31, 2019. On February 5, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 6, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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, Complainant filed an amended Complaint on February 13, 2019. 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 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 14, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 6, 2019. The Response was filed with the Center on February 24, 2019. The Center appointed Robert A. Badgley as the sole panelist in this matter on March 6, 2019. 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 Complainant is a company incorporated in India. Complainant describes itself as a “technology enabler in the FMCG [fast-moving consumer goods] Distribution Business.” According to Complainant, it has developed “proprietary software called BIZOM, which is a last mile sales force automation and supply chain software capable of providing tracking activities of on field sales executive containing all or any of the features viz., vans sales automation, order management, attendance workflow, activities capture, distribution management system, claims management, vendor management, asset management, task management etc”. Complainant states that it also provides Customer Relationship Management [CRM] services and Enterprise Resource Planning [ERP] services. According to the Complaint, Complainant’s BIZOM mark is well known, and Complainant has recently become “the third fastest growing tech company in India.” Complainant holds a number of registered trademarks for BIZOM in India, with registrations dated March 3, 2017. Complainant also holds an international mark for BIZOM under the Madrid protocol, registration number 1 441 134 dated August 10, 2018. It is not known from the Complaint or annexes thereto when Complainant first used the BIZOM mark in commerce. A review of Complainant’s website at <bizom.in> (undertaken by the Panel), at the site’s “About Us” page, indicates that BIZOM was “launched” in 2012, and Complainant acquired its first customer of BIZOM services in 2012. The Domain Name was registered on June 25, 2004. Little is known of Respondent, whose Response is rather lean in substance, but Respondent states that he incorporated the company Bizom Business Solutions Inc. in Alberta, Canada. The certificate of incorporation annexed to the Response bears the date February 14, 2019, which is one day after the Complaint in this proceeding was filed. Respondent does not describe its actual business, and does not explain why he registered the Domain Name in 2004. The Domain Name resolves to an undeveloped website, essentially a parking page containing a handful of hyperlinks, including “Sales CRM” and “ERP Software Solutions.” Below these links is a disclaimer: “The Sponsored Listings displayed above are served automatically by a third party. Neither the service provider nor the domain owner maintain any relationship with the advertisers. In case of trademark issues please contact the domain owner directly (contact information can be found in whois)”. Complainant annexes to the Complaint a June 7, 2018, email from a domain name buyer’s agent (“MM”), who asked Complainant whether it had any interest in MM’s services in order to obtain the Domain Name. Respondent states that he never had any contact with MM and does not know MM. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant asserts that it has established the three elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. B. Respondent The substance of Respondent’s Response is largely reflected above in the Factual Background section. The Panel would only add here that Respondent observes that he registered the Domain Name in 2004, some 13 years before Complainant had acquired a trademark registration anywhere for the BIZOM mark. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the mark BIZOM through registration and use. The Panel also finds the Domain Name to be identical to the mark. Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements: (i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your 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) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The Panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Respondent has not come forward to explain why he registered the Domain Name. Respondent points to a certificate of incorporation with the province of Alberta, Canada, but that certificate is dated one day after the Complaint in this proceeding was filed. The Panel has no idea how quickly a certificate of incorporation can issue in Alberta, Canada. In any event, Respondent has not bothered to describe his alleged business. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation,” are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in “bad faith”: (i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or (ii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location. This Complaint must fail because Complainant has provided no evidence that Respondent registered the Domain Name in bad faith. As far as the Panel can tell from the record supplied by Complainant, and a bit of independent research, it appears that Complainant had not begun to use the trademark BIZOM until 2012, which is eight years after the Domain Name was registered in 2004. This basic fact dooms the Complaint. Although Respondent does not explain why he registered the Domain Name, and while his incorporation of a Canadian company one day after the Complaint was filed seems fishy, the Domain Name is comprised of a rather catchy five-letter Second-Level Domain, “Bizom”. A short, catchy Domain Name like this is inherently attractive, regardless of whether it corresponds to an actual trademark. At the time the Domain Name was registered, there simply was no BIZOM mark out there to target or infringe. On the record here, the relief sought by Complainant simply cannot be granted. Complainant has not established Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied. Robert A. Badgley Sole Panelist Date: March 6, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around bizom.com
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.