Philoiptv.com

The timeline behind philoiptv.com

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 AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Philo, Inc. v. FOUAD ZAHRAOUI, 1988 Case No. D2024-2109 1. The Parties The Complainant is Philo, Inc., United States of America, represented by The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC, United States of America. The Respondent is FOUAD ZAHRAOUI, 1988, Morocco. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <philoiptv.com> 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 May 22, 2024. On May 22, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 22, 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 (Registration Private / Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 24, 2024, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on May 26, 2024. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 30, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 19, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 9, 2024. page 2 The Center appointed William Lobelson as the sole panelist in this matter on July 15, 2024. 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 Philo, Inc., a US based company that offers under the brand PHILO an online on- demand television (“TV”) programs platform. It owns several trademark registrations for PHILO, including: PHILO: U.S. Reg. No. 3,508,657 (registered September 30, 2008) for “an electronic device, not for use in the medical field, to monitor and analyze High Definition Video Signals generated by cameras used in the production of video and television broadcasts”; PHILO: U.S. Reg. No. 4,969,124 (registered May 31, 2016) for “computer hardware and computer software for personalized and interactive video and television programming”; PHILO EDU: U.S. Reg. No. 5,681,431 (registered February 19, 2019) for “subscription television broadcasting and video broadcasting services”. The disputed domain name is <philoiptv.com>. It was registered on July 20, 2022, and is routed to an active web site dedicated to an Internet TV service. Mail exchange (“MX”) servers have been set up. The Complainant served a cease and desist letter to the Respondent on October 26, 2023, which has remained unanswered. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its earlier trademarks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Notwithstanding the default of the Respondent, it remains incumbent on the Complainant to make out its case in all respects under the Rules set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. Namely, the Complainant must prove that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i)); (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (paragraph 4(a)(ii)); and page 3 (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii)). A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions 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. Although the addition of other elements (here, “iptv”, usual abbreviation for Internet Protocol Television) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such elements does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.8. The Panel finds the first 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: (i) before any notice of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services; (ii) the Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if the Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. 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 often 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 forward 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 fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, particularly by asserting that the Respondent is not affiliated with it in any way and that it never authorized the Respondent to use its trademark as part of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. page 4 C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for 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 faith. 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. There is no doubt in the present matter that the Respondent had the Complainant’s trademark in mind when it registered the disputed domain name, as the disputed domain name is formed with the Complainant’s trademark, to which the abbreviation IPTV is associated. IPTV is understood as Internet Protocol Television. Internet Television is precisely the very business that the Complainant is involved in and in respect of which its earlier mark PHILO is being exploited. It is also noted that the Respondent used a privacy registration service, thus concealing its identity. Which appears suspicious to the Panel is, if the Respondent intended to run a genuine legitimate business under the disputed domain name, and in particular an Internet TV service, it would have no reason to prevent the public from knowing its identity. The Panel also observes that the disputed domain name routes to an active web site dedicated to a web TV service, identical to - and directly competing with, the Complainant’s. The Respondent is thus making use of the disputed domain name, that is formed with the Complainant’s trademark, in relation with the services that the said trademark is protected for. The Respondent was put on notice of the Complainant’s rights, with a cease and desist letter served on October 26, 2023, but never replied thereto. Further, the Complainant has filed evidence showing that the Respondent had set up MX servers in relation with the disputed domain name, thus revealing a possible intention to use the same as an email address. The Panel finds that by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 <philoiptv.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /William Lobelson/ William Lobelson Sole Panelist Date: July 29, 2024

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