The domain name Frameo.com was registered in 2018 after a drop; at the time, the auction closed at $362 dollars as recorded by NameBio.
Its Korean registrant likes to use the moniker “lawyer247” while bidding on DropCatch and owns thousands of domains. Is he a lawyer? Doubtful, as he doesn’t seem to respond to UDRP cases, 90% of which he has lost.
In this case, Danish company Frameo ApS filed the UDRP, having formed in 2015 and acquired the registration of the FRAMEO trademark in Denmark, the UK, and the EU in 2017. The domain’s registration in 2018 is thus junior to these marks.
The Respondent wants $77,000 dollars for the domain, which the panelist found exorbitant.
The sole panelist at the WIPO delivered a finding that favors the Complainant and ordered the domain Frameo.com to be transferred to the Complainant.
ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER – ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Frameo ApS v. Jungyuhkook Case No. D2022-3982
The Parties
The Complainant is Frameo ApS, Denmark, represented by Interlex Advokater I/S, Denmark. The Respondent is Jungyuhkook, Republic of Korea.
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name frameo.com is registered with Megazone Corp., dba HOSTING.KR (the “Registrar”).
Procedural History
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 24, 2022. On October 24, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 25, 2022, 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.
On November 2, 2022, the Center notified the Parties in both English and Korean that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Korean. On November 2, 2022, the Complainant requested for English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.
The Center verified that 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 in English and Korean of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 9, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 29, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 2, 2022.
The Center appointed Kathryn Lee as the sole panelist in this matter on December 9, 2022. 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.
Factual Background
The Complainant is a developer of a software for WiFi photo frames. The Complainant was founded in 2015 in Denmark and owns trademark registrations to the mark FRAMEO in several jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom (Reg. No. 00916482747, filed on March 20, 2017, and registered on July 7, 2017) and the European Union (Reg. No. 016482747, filed on March 20, 2017, and registered on July 7, 2017).
The Respondent appears to be an individual with an address in the Republic of Korea.
The disputed domain name was registered on July 4, 2018, and is not connected to any website.
Parties’ Contentions
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the FRAMEO trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and confirms that it has not authorized or licensed rights to the Respondent in any respect. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name at one point was linked to a website containing advertisement links with a “for sale” notice, and contends that it is not in use and has never been in use in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, nor with a bona fide offering of goods and services.
Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith. Specifically, the Complainant contends that the Respondent’s only reason for registering the disputed domain name was to improperly profit from the sale of the disputed domain name or use it with parking services. As an example, the Complainant points out that the Respondent previously used the disputed domain name to display pay-per-click ads. The Complainant also states that it made an offer of USD 300 for the disputed domain name but that the Respondent counteroffered with USD 77,000, and that when the Complainant raised the offer to USD 310, the Respondent cancelled the negotiations. The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent was the responding party in several domain name dispute cases in which the panels decided that the Respondent registered and used the domain names with bad faith. The Complainant asserts that this shows that the Respondent has bad faith with respect to the disputed domain name as well.
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
Discussion and Findings
Language of Proceedings
Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that the language of the proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, subject to the authority of the panel to determine otherwise. In this case, the language of the Registration Agreement is Korean, and both Parties have had an opportunity to argue their positions on this point. The Center issued a notice in Korean and
English stating that it would accept the Complaint filed in English, and that the Response would be accepted in either Korean or English. The Respondent subsequently chose not to submit any response.
Given the fact that the Complainant is based in Denmark and the Respondent is based in the Republic of Korea, English would appear to be the fairest neutral language for rendering this decision. Further, the disputed domain name is composed of Latin characters. Besides, both Parties were given the opportunity to submit arguments in the language of their preference, and the language in which to render the decision is reserved for the Panel. The Panel would have considered a Response in Korean, but no Response was submitted. In addition, according to WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.1, the Panel can take into consideration prior cases involving the respondent in a particular language. In this regard, there are six prior WIPO UDRP decisions involving a respondent in the Republic of Korea by the name of “Jungyuhkook”, and the panels in all the cases rendered decisions in English, deciding that the respondent has sufficient knowledge of English to be able to understand the decision in English, or that he would not be unduly prejudiced by rendering the decision in English. Accordingly, the Panel determines that rendering the decision in English is fair and procedurally efficient, given the circumstances of this case.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns trademark registrations for the term FRAMEO. The disputed domain name solely consists of the term “frameo”, and is therefore, identical to the Complainant’s trademark.
For the reason mentioned above, the Panel finds that the first element has been established.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
On the basis of the present record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made the required allegations to support a prima facie showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie basis has been established, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent in this case has chosen to file no response to these assertions by the Complainant, and there is no evidence or allegation in the records that would warrant a finding in favor of the Respondent on this point. For instance, the disputed domain name is inactive, thus there can be no bona fide offering establishing rights or legitimate interests. Moreover, the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark, thus carrying a high risk of implied affiliation to the Complainant.
For the reasons provided above, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the second element has been established.
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that there is sufficient evidence to find bad faith in this case.
Section 3.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 provides that bad faith under the UDRP is “broadly understood to occur where a respondent takes unfair advantage of or otherwise abuses a complainant’s mark”. Here, evidence suggests that the Respondent likely knew of the Complainant when registering the disputed domain name. First of all, the Panel finds that “frameo” is a distinctive term, and the Respondent has given no explanation for having registered this particular term. Further, the Panel’s Google and Naver searches for “frameo” for the three-year period preceding registration of the disputed domain name showed results which appear to be almost exclusively in connection with the Complainant. Besides, the Complainant’s trademark registrations would have been discoverable through a trademark search. Therefore, without no explanation to the contrary from the Respondent, the Panel finds that the Respondent more likely than not registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark in order to unfairly profit from the likelihood of association with the Complainant’s trademark and the products using the mark.
The disputed domain name does not currently display any content, but from the inception of the UDRP, UDRP panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Considering the distinctiveness of the FRAMEO mark, the Respondent’s counteroffer of USD 77,000 that is likely well in excess of the out-of- pocket expenses incurred by the Respondent for registering and maintaining the disputed domain name, and the Respondent’s failure to submit a response or provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith.
Lastly, the Panel takes note of the various prior UDRP decisions rendered against the Respondent that indicate a pattern of bad faith conduct on part of the Respondent, e.g., Fundación Universitaria Iberoamericana (Funiber) v. Jungyuhkook, WIPO Case No. D2019-2743; Institut de Recherche Biologique – IRB v. Jungyuhkook, WIPO Case No. D2018-2125.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the third element has been established.
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 frameo.com be transferred to the Complainant.
/Kathryn Lee/ Kathryn Lee Sole Panelist
Date: January 4, 2023
