Synopsys.sbs

The timeline behind synopsys.sbs

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 Synopsys, Inc. v. abdelali chahate Case No. D2024-0842 1. The Parties The Complainant is Synopsys, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France. The Respondent is abdelali chahate, Morocco. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <synopsys.sbs> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was f iled with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 26, 2024. On February 27, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the Domain Name. On February 27, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact inf ormation f or the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy, Privacy service provided by Withheld f or Privacy ehf) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 28, 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 amended Complaint on March 1, 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” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or 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 March 5, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 25, 2024. The Respondent sent email communications to the Center on March 8 and March 11, 2024. page 2 The Center appointed Nicholas Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on April 12, 2024. The Panel f inds 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 United States corporation, f ounded in 1986, that is engaged in electronic design automation. The Complainant is a publicly traded corporation with 19,000 employees, with (in 2023) over USD 5.8 billion in revenue. The Complainant and its predecessors in title have held trademark registrations f or SYNOPSYS (the “SYNOPSYS Mark”) since at least 1990. Its trademark registrations for the SYNOPSYS Mark are in a range of jurisdictions including registrations in the United States (trademark registration number 1,601,521, registered June 12, 1990). The Complainant is the owner of numerous domain names consisting of or including its SYNOPSYS Mark, including <synopsys.com>, f rom which it operates its main consumer-f acing website. The Domain Name was registered on November 30, 2023. The Domain Name resolves to a website offering pay-per-click advertisements. 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 Domain Name. Notably, the Complainant contends that: a) It is the owner of the SYNOPSYS Mark, having registered the SYNOPSYS Mark in the United States. The Domain Name is identical to the SYNOPSYS Mark as it reproduces the SYNOPSYS Mark in its entirety adding only the Top-Level Do main “.sb s”. b) There are no rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainant has not granted any license or authorization f or the Respondent to use the SYNOPSYS Mark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the SYNOPSYS Mark, nor does it use the Domain Name for a bona fide purpose or legitimate noncommercial purpose. Instead, the Domain Name resolves to a pay-per-click site. Such use of the Domain Name cannot and does not constitute bona f ide commercial use, sufficient to legitimize any rights or interests the Respondent might have in the Domain Name and therefore the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. c) The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. There is no plausible circumstance under which the Respondent could legitimately use the Domain Name, which is identical to the coined SYNOPSYS Mark, other than in bad faith. The Respondent gains revenue from the Domain Name by having the Domain Name resolve to a pay-per-click website and has also conf igured mail exchange (MX) servers indicating that the Domain Name could be used f or sending scam emails. In such circumstances, the Respondent’s conduct amounts to use of the Domain Name in bad f aith. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not f ormally reply to the Complainant’s contentions. The Respondent’s emails on March 8, 2024 and March 11, 2024 primarily stated an interest in exploring settlement options of a f inancial nature (which the Complainant chose not to pursue). However, in the email of March 8, 2024, the Respondent states (without evidentiary support) that: “...I want to assure you that my purchase of this domain was made in good f aith, as it was available f or purchase at the time, and I was unaware of any potential connection to another party's interests or rights. Please understand that I have been and continue to use this domain legitimately, without any intention of causing harm or engaging in any activity that could be considered as bad faith. Additionally, I have already begun developing a project associated with this domain and have invested my own resources into this venture....” 6. Discussion and Findings 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 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 Domain Name. Accordingly, the 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 record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima f acie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the 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 Domain Name. page 4 The Panel considers that the record of this case ref lects that: - bef ore any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent did not use, nor has it made demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona f ide of f ering of goods or services. Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.2. - the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has not been commonly known by the Domain Name. Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.3. - the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or f air use of the Domain Name, without intent f or commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.4. - the record contains no other f actors demonstrating rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the Domain Name. The use of the Domain Name for a parking page with pay-per-click links in the circumstances of this case is not a bona f ide offering of goods or services nor legitimate noncommercial or f air use. The Panel notes the statements in the WIPO Overview 3.0 on the question of whether “parked” pages comprising pay-per-click links support the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests. Section 2.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 notes that: “Applying UDRP paragraph 4(c), panels have found that the use of a domain name to host a parked page c o m p ri si ng P P C [ pay-per-click] links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s mark or otherwise mislead Internet users. Panels have recognized that the use of a domain name to host a page comprising PPC links would be permissible – and therefore consistent with respondent rights or legitimate interests under the UDRP – where the domain name consists of an actual dictionary word(s) or phrase and is used to host PPC links genuinely related to the dictionary meaning of the word(s) or phrase comprising the domain name, and not to trade of f the complainant’s (or its comp etito r’s) trad emark.” In this case, the Panel notes that the Domain Name corresponds to a coined trademark and not a dictionary term. Furthermore, the Panel does not accept the Respondent’s unsupported assertions that it has begun developing a project associated with the Domain Name, nor does mere acquisition of a Domain Name provide a party with rights or legitimate interests, as submitted by the Respondent. The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established. 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. The Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of conf usion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, af f iliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.1.4. The Domain Name, which is identical to the coined SYNOPSYS Mark, resolves to a page of f ering pay-per- click links f or which the Respondent most likely would receive some commercial gain. In these circumstances where the Respondent has offered no plausible or supported explanation f or the registration page 5 of the Domain Name, the Panel finds that the Respondent was most likely aware of the Complainant at the time of registration and is using the Domain Name to intentionally attempt to attract, f or commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the SYNOPSYS Mark as to the source, sponsorship, af f iliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. The Panel f inds the third element of the Policy has been established. 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 Domain Name <synopsys.sbs> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Nicholas Smith/ Nicholas Smith Sole Panelist Date: April 22, 2024

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