Arm Limited v Anthony Marino

WIPO Case No. D2022-1101

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Arm Limited v. Anthony Marino

Case No. D2022-1101

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Arm Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Quinn IP Law, United States of America

(“United States”).

The Respondent is Anthony Marino, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <arm-tech.net> is registered with Google LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 31, 2022. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. Also on March 31, 2022, 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 and contact information in the Complaint.

The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 4, 2022 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 April 10, 2022.

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 the due date for Response was May 3, 2022. The Respondent sent an informal email communication to the Center on April 4, 2022, but no substantive response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Commencement of Panel Appointment Process on May 4, 2022.

page 2

The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on May 10, 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a United Kingdom based company, which designs sophisticated electronic products, supplies software, and provides software and consultancy services since 1990.

The Complainant owns ARM trademark registrations in various jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom trademark Reg. No. UK00002000006, registered on January 29, 1999, the United States trademark Reg. No. 2332930, registered on March 21, 2000 and the Singapore trademark Reg. No. 40201505972U, registered on November 18, 2014 (Annex V to the Complaint).

The Complainant further holds and operates its official website at “ (Annex VI to the

Complaint).

The Respondent is an individual reportedly located in the United States.

The disputed domain name was registered on May 25, 2018 and apparently does not resolve to an active website (Annex VIII to the Complaint).

Prior to initiating the present administrative proceeding, the Complainant tried to solve the matter amicably
by sending a demand letter to the Registrar, and requesting the Registrar to forward the letter to the

Respondent (Annex IX to the Complaint).

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ARM trademark.

It further argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

In addition, the Complainant is convinced that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions. In his short email communication to the Center on April 4, 2022, the Respondent notes that he owns the disputed domain name for several years, works “in technology”, and does not understand “what is going on here”.

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the
Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.

page 3

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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 and is being used in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant bears the burden of proving that all these
requirements are fulfilled, even if the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions. See

Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2007-1228.

However, concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel may, where
relevant, accept the provided reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint as true. See section 4.3 of the
WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the consensus views captured therein.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant has registered trademark rights in the mark ARM by virtue of various trademark registrations worldwide, including in the United States, where the Respondent is reportedly located.

The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered ARM trademark, as it fully incorporates the Complainant’s trademark. As stated at section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of

other terms would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The mere addition of the term “tech” and a
hyphen, does not, in view of the Panel, serve to avoid a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed
domain name and the Complainant’s ARM trademark.

Hence, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ARM trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel further finds that the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

While the burden of proof on this element remains with the complainant, previous UDRP panels have recognized that this would result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, in particular as the evidence in this regard is often primarily within the knowledge of the respondent. Therefore, the Panel agrees with prior UDRP panels that the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case before the

burden of production shifts to the Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to meet the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied this requirement, while the Respondent has failed to file any evidence or make any convincing argument to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name according to the Policy, paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(c).

page 4

In its Complaint, the Complainant has provided uncontested prima facie evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to use the Complainant’s ARM trademark in a confusingly similar way within the disputed domain name.

There is also no indication in the current record that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, particularly as it appears that the disputed domain name has not been actively used. In the absence of a substantive response, the Respondent has also failed to demonstrate any of the other non- exclusive circumstances evidencing rights or legitimate interests under the Policy, paragraph 4(c) or other evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

In addition, the Panel notes that the composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation or endorsement, as stated in section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

As a conclusion, the Panel finds that the Complainant has also satisfied the requirements of paragraph

4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel is convinced that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant’s trademark when he registered the disputed domain name in May 2018. At the date of registration of the disputed domain name, the Complainant’s ARM trademark was already registered and widely used for many years.

With respect to use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, as already indicated before, the disputed domain name has apparently not been linked to an active website. Nonetheless, and in line with previous UDRP decisions (e.g. Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003) and section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, the Panel concludes that the non-use of the disputed domain name in this case does not prevent a finding of bad faith.

Applying the passive holding doctrine as summarized in section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, the Panel assesses the Complainant’s ARM trademark as sufficiently distinctive for technological products and even widely known in the relevant customer circles (particularly in the United States, where the Respondent is

reportedly located, and the Panel also notes that the Respondent stated that he works “in technology”). with the term “tech”, the Panel finds the implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain name may be put.

Furthermore, the Panel accepts that the failure of the Respondent to submit a substantive response to the
Complainant’s contentions as an additional indication for bad faith.

Taking all circumstances of this case into consideration, the Panel concludes that in the present case the passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith use by the Respondent. In fact, the Panel is convinced that this is a typical cybersquatting case, which the UDRP was designed to stop.

Consequently, the Panel is finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad
faith and that the Complainant consequently has satisfied the third element of the Policy, namely, paragraph
4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

page 5

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 <arm-tech.net> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Kaya Köklü/ Kaya Köklü Sole Panelist Date: May 24, 2022