CitiusTech Healthcare Technology Private Limited v Mesut Erdogan

WIPO Case No. D2025-1005

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

CitiusTech Healthcare Technology Private Limited v. Mesut Erdogan

Case No. D2025-1005

1. The Parties

The Complainant is CitiusTech Healthcare Technology Private Limited, India, represented by Vutts &

Associates LLP, India.

The Respondent is mesut erdogan, Türkiye.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <citiustechhealthsparx.com> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 12, 2025.
On March 12, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On March 13, 2025, 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 (Not Available, Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and
contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March
13, 2025, 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

March 17, 2025.

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 March 19, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was April 8, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly,
the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 9, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Mario Soerensen Garcia as the sole panelist in this matter on April 16, 2025. 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 in this administrative proceeding is an Indian company, related to IT services, consulting, and business solutions to healthcare and life sciences companies.

The Complainant is the owner of several CITIUSTECH trademarks registered before the registration of the disputed domain name, such as:

Reg. no.	Trademark	Country	Reg. date.	Class(es)
2690440	CITIUSTECH	India	March 3, 2014	9
4628676	CITIUSTECH	United States of	October 28, 2014	9, 42
America (“US”)
4628601	CITIUSTECH	US	October 28, 2014	9, 42

The Complainant also filed pending US trademark application No. 98628637, for CITIUSTECH registered on May 18, 2005.

The Respondent is mesut erdogan, from Türkiye.

The disputed domain name was registered on January 28, 2025 and resolves to a page informing that the disputed domain name is for sale for USD 2,850.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademarks.

There is no evidence that the Respondent has made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name for legitimate purposes, nor is there any evidence that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with any noncommercial or fair use. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

That being the case, the Complainant finds that the disputed domain name is likely to make Internet users assume that it is linked to the Complainant, as it incorporates its trademarks.

According to the Complainant, it has prior rights over its trademarks and has not authorized the
Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant’s intellectual property rights for its trademarks and domain name predate the registration of the disputed domain name.

According to the Complainant, the registration and use of the disputed domain name has been conducted in bad faith.

page 3

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

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 the trademark or service mark in which the

Complainant has rights;

(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 used in bad faith.

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.

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 entirety of the CITIUSTECH 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.

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.

Although 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 difficult 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 (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). 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.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence

page 4

demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the
Policy or otherwise.

There is no evidence that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name or that before any notice of the dispute the Respondent has made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

The Panel finds that the nature of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation.

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 Panel finds that the Respondent was aware of the CITIUSTECH trademark as the
Complainant’s trademark registrations predate the registration date of the disputed domain name.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, the composition of the

disputed domain name, and the offer for sale of the disputed domain name for USD 2,850 and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

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 <citiustechhealthsparx.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Mario Soerensen Garcia/
Mario Soerensen Garcia
Sole Panelist
Date: April 30, 2025