Neustar wins UDRP against Australian domain neustar.com.au

Neustar has won the UDRP against the Australian domain, neustar.com.au.

In May, the Internet services company filed the UDRP to protect its brand; at the time, we predicted that it would win this case.

The Respondent is Ahmad Zaki Hakimi of Sydney, Australia, who failed to file an official response to the Complaint.

On July 14, 2017, the Respondent confirmed that it had no connection with the Complainant, and indicated it acquired the domain name solely to resell it, but did not address any of the arguments advanced by the Complainant.

William P. Knight, Sole Panelist for the WIPO, ordered the domain neustar.com.au to be transferred to the Complainant.

Full details on this UDRP case follow.

Note: Neustar is a premium sponsor of DomainGang.com. We provide news and information about industry companies; this post is not a paid advertisement or endorsement.

Neustar Australia Pty Ltd. v. Ahmad Zaki Hakimi
Case No. DAU2017-0015

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Neustar Australia Pty Ltd. of Melbourne, Australia, internally represented.

The Respondent is Ahmad Zaki Hakimi of Sydney, Australia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <neustar.com.au> is registered with Web Address Registration Pty Ltd (“the Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 19, 2017. On May 19, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 22, 2017, 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.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .au Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “.auDRP”), the Rules for .au Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .au Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 1, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 21, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 22, 2017.

The Center appointed William P. Knight as the sole panelist in this matter on July 4, 2017. 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.

On July 14, 2017, the Center received an email communication from the Respondent which offered no substantive response to the Complaint, the contents of which are described below.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is the Australian subsidiary of Neustar, Inc., an American public company engaged in database management, namely what it calls “connection science”: “the study of connecting people, places, and things, with the greatest relevance and the highest degree of security”, providing products and services that combine the collection and correlation of data using the power of analytics and statistics and the corroboration and connection of that data. Neustar’s Inc.’s United States of America (“United States”) trade mark registrations date back to 1999 but the Applicant does not as yet have any Australian trade mark registrations. The Complainant was registered in the Australian Company Registry on February 14, 2003, with Australian Business Number 1610372962.

The Respondent is a person with an Australian Business Number, identifying a business name registered in New South Wales with the name “create2print”.

The disputed domain name was registered on March 6, 2014.

The disputed domain name is not in use. It points to a parking page provided by the Registrar, which promotes the Registrar’s services.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant relies upon its own company name, of which the distinguishing component is “neustar” and the reputation in the unregistered trade mark NEUSTAR belonging to its parent using which it trades in Australia. The disputed domain name contains the dominant part of the Complainant’s name and unregistered trade mark NEUSTAR.

The Complainant contends that there is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the name “neustar”, that the Respondent is not a licensee or otherwise affiliated with the Complainant or any related body corporate, and, as a result, that under the auDA published policy “Domain Name Eligibility and Allocation Policy Rules for Open 2LDS” and the associated guidelines, the Complainant was not entitled to register the disputed domain name at all.

The Complainant says that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services in that it is being used only as a parking page. Furthermore, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name could only have been registered by the Respondent giving a false assurance in his application for registration that he had sufficient connection to the word “neustar” to register the disputed domain name.

In all these circumstances, the Complainant also alleges that the disputed domain name was registered / used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint. In its untimely email of July 14, 2017, the Respondent confirmed that it had no connection with the Complainant, and indicated it acquired the domain name solely to resell it, but did not address any of the substantive arguments advanced by the Complainant.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that, in order to divest the Respondent of the disputed domain name, the Complainant must demonstrate each of the following:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name, trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered or subsequently used in bad faith.

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules directs the Panel to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel accepts that the Complainant is trading in Australia under its own name Neustar Australia Pty Ltd., is the wholly owned subsidiary of Neustar, Inc. promoting the use of its parent’s products and services in Australia, under the trade mark NEUSTAR. The Panel finds that the Complainant has sufficient rights in NEUSTAR to bring this Complaint; see auDA Overview of Panel Views on Selected auDRP Questions First Edition (“auDA auDRP Overview 1.0”) section 1.8. The Panel also accepts the Complainant’s submission that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trade mark NEUSTAR. Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established the first auDRP element.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submission that the Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use the NEUSTAR mark in any way, including in a domain name. The Respondent has no connection whatsoever with this name and has not explained the use of these words in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established the second auDRP element.

C. Registered or Subsequently Used in Bad Faith

For the reasons advanced by the Complainant, the Panel accepts that the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name in bad faith; see auDA auDRP Overview 1.0 section 3.2A.

The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established both that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. The third auDRP element is established.

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <neustar.com.au> be transferred to the Complainant.

William P. Knight
Sole Panelist
Date: July 17, 2017

Copyright © 2024 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.