Amdocs Development Ltd., Amdocs Software Systems Ltd. v Wu Yu

WIPO Case No. D2023-3185

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Amdocs Development Ltd., Amdocs Software Systems Ltd. v. Wu Yu

Case No. D2023-3185

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Amdocs Development Ltd., Cyprus and Amdocs Software Systems Ltd., Ireland, represented by Liad Whatstein & Co., Israel.

The Respondent is Wu Yu, Seychelles.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <amdocs.cloud> is registered with Sav.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 24, 2023. On
July 25, 2023, the Center transmitted by emails to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On July 25, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by emails to the
Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name
which differed from the named Respondent (Sav.Com, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The
Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 1, 2023, 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 amended Complaint on August 7, 2023.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 August 8, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5,
the due date for Response was August 28, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 14, 2023.

page 2

The Center appointed Kiyoshi Tsuru as the sole panelist in this matter on October 2, 2023. 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 belongs to the Amdocs group of companies, which develop and market software solutions in various fields.

The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations around the world, among others, the following:

Trademark	No. Registration	Jurisdiction	Date of Registration
Switzerland, Israel,
AMDOCS	1302596	April 11, 2016
India, Mexico.
AMDOCS	015184252	European Union	July 13, 2016
AMDOCS	581774	Switzerland	January 19, 2009

The disputed domain name <amdocs.cloud> was registered on April 09, 2022. The disputed domain name currently resolves to a landing page comprising links to third party software vendors.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant argued the following:

I. Identical or Confusingly Similar

That the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the AMDOCS registered trademarks.

That the AMDOCS trademarks have acquired substantial goodwill by extensive use thereof worldwide, and that they are well-known trademarks.

II. Rights or Legitimate Interests

That the Respondent does not have legitimate interests in the disputed domain name since there is no evidence of use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

That the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

That the Respondent has no trademark rights for the AMDOCS.

III. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

That the disputed domain is identical to the Complainant’s trademark AMDOCS and that it has been used by
the Respondent in relation to a phishing campaign which uses e-mail addresses similar to those of the
Complainant.

page 3

That the disputed domain name has been used to mislead Internet users to believe that the disputed domain name is owned or endorsed by, or associated with the Complainant.

That the Respondent currently does not offer products or services under the disputed domain name. That, instead, the disputed domain name redirects users to a landing page which offers sponsored links to direct competitors of the Complainant.

That the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its trademark in a corresponding domain name and that therefore, the disputed domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Given the Respondent’s failure to submit a formal Response, the Panel may decide this proceeding based
on the Complainant’s undisputed factual allegations under paragraphs 5(f), 14(a), and 15(a) of the Rules
(see Joseph Phelps Vineyards LLC v. NOLDC, Inc., Alternative Identity, Inc., and Kentech, WIPO Case No.
D2006-0292, and Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. null John Zuccarini, Country Walk, WIPO Case No.

D2002-0487).

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.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds 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 Panel finds that the entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly,
the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Based on the available record, 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.

While 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 often impossible 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. 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.

page 4

prima facie bona fide offering of goods or services, and that the Respondent has not been licensed or otherwise permitted by the Complainant to use the AMDOCS trademark or to register the disputed domain name (see Amdocs Development Ltd. and Amdocs Software Systems Ltd. v. cenk erdogan, WIPO Case No. D2023-3044; Amdocs Development Ltd. and Amdocs Software Systems Ltd. v. Nick Lamba, WIPO Case No. D2023-2573 and Autodesk, Inc. v. Brian Byrne, meshIP, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2017-0191). 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.

Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a case that the asserted that there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in connection with a

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

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.

In the present case, the disputed domain name resolves to a landing page comprising links to third party software vendors which the Complainant declares to be its competitors. This affirmation was not contested by the Respondent. Therefore, the Panel considers that the Respondent has intended to capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark by misleading Internet users, for commercial gain, to the disputed domain name by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name, which constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy (see section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, see also Fontem Holdings 4, B.V. v. J- B-, Limestar Inc., WIPO Case No. D2016-0344; Archer-Daniels-Midland Company v. Wang De Bing, WIPO Case No. D2017-0363, and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Domain Administrator, PrivacyGuardian.org / George Ring, DN Capital Inc., WIPO Case No. D2017-0302).

similar to a well-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4). This Panel agrees with the decision issued in Amdocs Development	Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly widely known trademark.
Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established.
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 <amdocs.cloud> be transferred.
/Kiyoshi Tsuru/ Kiyoshi Tsuru Sole Panelist Date: October 16, 2023