Arrise.org

The timeline behind arrise.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.

ARBITRATION AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Arrise Limited v. Oklah Homsa Case No. D2024-0641 1. The Parties The Complainant is Arrise Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Wiley, Rein LLP, United States of America. The Respondent is Oklah Homsa, Bulgaria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <arrise.org> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was f iled with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 12, 2024. On February 13, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 13, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (WITHHELD FOR PRIVACY EHF) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 14, 2024 providing the registrant and contact inf ormation disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amended Complaint on February 16, 2024. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” o r “UDRP”), the Rules f o r Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 19, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was March 10, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on March 19, 2024. The Center appointed Marilena Comanescu as the sole panelist in this matter on March 26, 2024. The Panel f inds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and page 2 Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant, Arrise Limited, is a company established under the laws of the British Virgin Islands and operating in Gibraltar. The Complainant services Pragmatic Play, a leading provider of mobile and desktop casino games f or online gaming industry. The Complainant holds trademark registration f or or incorporating ARRISE, such as the f ollowing: - the European Union trademark registration number 018926949 for ARRISE (word), filed on September 19, 2023, and registered on January 20, 2024, for goods and services in International classes 9, 35, 36, 41 and 42; and - the European Union trademark registration number 018926982 f or ARRISE (mark with device), f iled on September 19, 2023, and registered on January 20, 2024, for goods and services in International classes 9, 35, 36, 41 and 42. The Complainant owns the domain name <arrise.com>, registered since August 23, 2000 and <arrisecareers.com> registered since July 19, 2023. The disputed domain name <arrise.org> was registered on December 8, 2023, and, at the time of f iling the Complaint, it did not resolve to an active website. According to Annex 14 to the Complaint, the disputed domain name was used in connection with email addresses from which, purported Complainant’s employees were sending emails to customers of the Complainant, presenting themselves as the Complainant’s Billing & Collections team/representatives and asking recipients to pay invoices, purportedly issued by the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant alleges that it has been conducting business under ARRISE mark bef ore the disputed domain name was registered and, that the Complainant posted on social media accounts since August 2023, and holds common law rights in the mark for over six months before the marks; the disputed domain name is identical to its coined trademark; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name; the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad f aith, posing as the Complainant’s employee and sending emails to the Complainant’s customers seeking transf er of bank and payment information intended for the Complainant to a fraudulent account assumingly owned by the Respondent; the Respondent concealed its identity by using a privacy shield and further on, the identity of the unmasked contact inf ormation that the Respondent provided in the Registrar is very likely f alse. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. pa ge 3 6. Discussion and Findings Under the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad f aith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.7. The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is of ten primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come f orward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent f ails to come f orward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima f acie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come f orward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. According to the evidence provided in the Complaint, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with email addresses, seeking transf er of bank and payment inf ormation f rom third parties, customers of the Complainant, falsely pretending to be representatives of the Complainant. UDRP panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (such as phishing, impersonation/passing of f or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.13.1. The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established. pa ge 4 C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, f or the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad f aith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name was registered in bad f aith, with knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark made available online, including on the social pages since at least August 2023. Further, the use of the disputed domain name in relation to phishing emails, impersonating the Complainant’s employees, f urther supports such conclusion. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.2.1. At the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name directs towards an error page. However, as evidenced by the Complainant, the disputed domain name was used in relation to phishing emails. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (here, sending email, phishing, identity thef t, or other types of f raud) constitutes bad f aith. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.4. The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <arrise.o rg> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Marilena Comanescu/ Marilena Comanescu Sole Panelist Date: April 9, 2024

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