Atomico Investment Holdings Limited v Privacy Protection / LIUQINGRU - WIPO Case No. D2022-2333

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Atomico Investment Holdings Limited v. Privacy Protection / LIUQINGRU

Case No. D2022-2333

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Atomico Investment Holdings Limited, United Kingdom, represented by SafeNames Ltd,

United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Privacy Protection, United States of America (“United States”) / LIUQINGRU, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <atomicoventures.xyz> 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 June 28, 2022. On June 28, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 28, 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 June 30, 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 June 30, 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 Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 1, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 21, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 22, 2022.

The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on August 2, 2022. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and

page 2

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 European venture capital firm that invests in innovative technology companies globally, established in 2006. The Complainant, headquartered in London, United Kingdom, also operates from offices in Paris, Beijing, San Paulo, and Tokyo.

The Complainant is the owner of ATOMICO trademarks registered in the United States (reg. no. 3679910)
on September 8, 2009, in the European Union (trade mark no. 005446067) on March 10, 2008 and in
Australia (trade mark no. 1260386) on February 20, 2008.

The disputed domain name was registered on February 21, 2022 and currently redirects to a third party website where the disputed domain name is listed for sale at a “buy now” price of USD 1,455.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

According to the Complainant, each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Atomico Investment Holdings Limited v Privacy Protection / L...

Details

AGLC: Atomico Investment Holdings Limited v Privacy Protection / LIUQINGRU WIPO Case No. D2022-2333
Case: WIPO Case No. D2022-2333
Decision Date: 16-08-2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Atomico Investment Holdings Limited filed a complaint against Privacy Protection / LIUQINGRU in relation to the disputed domain name <atomicoventures.xyz>. Atomico Investment Holdings Limited is a European venture capital firm that operates globally, and it holds valid trademark registrations for "ATOMICO" in several jurisdictions. The respondent, Privacy Protection / LIUQINGRU, registered the domain name <atomicoventures.xyz> and is using it to redirect to a third-party website where it is listed for sale.

The primary legal issue the court needed to decide was whether the complainant had satisfied the three elements required under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) to succeed in its complaint. These elements include proving that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant's trademark, that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

The court found that the disputed domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant's trademark, as it merely reproduces the "ATOMICO" trademark with the addition of the term "ventures." The court also found that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as it had not been authorized or licensed by the complainant to use the trademark, and it was not using the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Finally, the court found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, as the respondent had intentionally targeted the complainant's trademark and was using the domain name for commercial gain by listing it for sale.

Based on these findings, the court ordered that the disputed domain name <atomicoventures.xyz> be transferred to the complainant, Atomico Investment Holdings Limited.

Orders