Incognia Tecnologia da Informação Ltda. v Web.com Holding Account / New

WIPO Case No. D2022-3425

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Incognia Tecnologia da Informação Ltda. v. Web.com Holding Account / New
Ventures Services, Corp

Case No. D2022-3425

1. The Parties

Complainant is Incognia Tecnologia da Informação Ltda., Brazil, represented by Montaury Pimenta,

Machado & Vieira de Mello, Brazil.

Respondent is Web.com Holding Account, United States of America / New Ventures Services, Corp, United

States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <inlocoengage.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Soaring Eagle

Domains, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 15, 2022. On September 15, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On September 16, 28, and October 6, 2022, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 12, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 1, 2022. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the

Center notified Respondent’s default on November 2, 2022.

The Center appointed Clive L. Elliott, K.C., as the sole panelist in this matter on November 11, 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

Complainant (formerly known as In Loco Tecnologia da Informação S.A.), is a technology company established in Brazil in 2013, providing intelligent solutions for businesses based on location data.

In 2021, Complainant changed its corporate name from “In Loco Tecnologia da Informação S.A” to “Incognis platform created to help customers understand consumer behavior based on real data.

Complainant provides many services under the IN LOCO name and brand, including “In Loco RWA”, “In
Loco Media”, “In Loco For Apps” and “In Loco Engage”.

Complainant’s IN LOCO and IN LOCO ENGAGE marks (“Complainant’s Marks”) have been widely used by Complainant since at least 2013 and 2017 respectively. Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations in the Brazilian Trademark Office, for Complainant’s Marks as follows:

Mark Registration No. Class Registration Date

page 3

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant states that in spite of the change of its corporate name, it has continuously used and registered

Complainant’s Marks and related marks and is associated with and known as IN LOCO.

Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark IN LOCO that could prevent the possibility of confusion among Internet users.

Complainant submits that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not
commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorised Respondent to use Complainant’s
Marks in its Domain Name.

Complainant asserts that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in bad faith, as evidenced by its passive holding of the Domain Name and as Respondent is a known cybersquatter with many UDRP decisions finding for Respondent’s bad faith registrations.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

For the reasons set out below Complainant is successful in its complaint.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant is a technology company established in Brazil in 2013. It has traded in that country, providing
location data solutions for businesses. Complainant has registered Complainant’s Marks at the Brazilian

Trademark Office since 2013 and 2017 respectively, see table above.

On that basis, Complainant has established applicable rights in Complainant’s Marks.

The Domain Name reproduces Complainant’s Marks in their entirety. Complainant’s IN LOCO and IN LOCO ENGAGE marks are present in and clearly recognizable in the Domain Name. The addition of the Top-Level Domain “.com” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See section 1.8 of WIPO Overview of

WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

In addition, Complainant’s Marks are plainly recognizable in the Domain Name. See section 1.7 of WIPO

Overview 3.0.

Accordingly, the Domain Name is either identical to or confusingly similar to Complainant’s Marks.

The first ground under the Policy is made out.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

As recorded above, Complainant submits that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, is, on the basis that Complainant alleges Respondent has a track record of acquiring other parties’ domain
nor has Complainant authorised Respondent to use Complainant’s Marks in its Domain Name. Further,
Complainant alleges that Respondent is a known cybersquatter with numerous adverse UDRP decisions.

page 4

names and that allegation puts Respondent to prove, to deny, or refute those allegations insofar as it

suggests that Respondent effectively lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

On that basis, given the lack of response and the nature of the allegation, the Panel concludes that

Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

Accordingly, the second ground under the Policy is made out.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds in favour of Complainant under this ground.

Complainant’s Marks were registered before the Domain Name was registered. The Domain Name is either the same as or very close to Complainant’s Marks. Complainant submits, and Respondent has not refuted that it is a known cybersquatter with many UDRP decisions finding for Respondent’s bad faith registrations. Under these circumstances, and noting that the Domain Name was previously held by Complainant, it is open to the Panel to infer that Respondent knew that Complainants Marks belonged to Complainant, and Respondent was not entitled to register the Domain Name, regardless of whether the Domain Name was to be passively held or not.

For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith.

Complainant has therefore established the third ground under 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 Domain Name, <inlocoengage.com> be transferred to Complainant.

/Clive L. Elliott, K.C./
Clive L. Elliott, K.C.
Sole Panelist
Date: December 1, 2022

913796280	9	March 16, 2021
913796336	42	January 29, 2019
913796379	45	January 29, 2019

IN LOCO ENGAGE	913796310	9	March 16, 2021
913796344	45	January 29, 2019
IN LOCO	912503360	9	April 16, 2019
916521192	35	September 17, 2019
919053998	36	December 15, 2020
912563370	38	April 16, 2019
912504170,	42	April 16, 2019
912504323	45	April 16, 2019
912503297	9	April 16, 2019
916521320	35	September 10, 2019
912564130	38	April 16, 2019
912504285	42	April 16, 2019
912504412	45	April 16, 2019
918795680	9	June 30, 2020
918689074	35	December 22, 2020
919054170	36	December 15, 2020
918795842	38	June 30, 2020
918795966	42	June 30, 2020
918796091	45	June 30, 2020

Complainant is also the registered owner of the domain name <inloco.com.br> since September 20, 2017. Complainant was also the previous registered owner of the Domain Name <inlocoengage.com> which has since expired.

According to the publicly available Whois, the Domain Name was registered on July 31, 2022, and as of the date of the Complaint the Domain Name does not currently resolve to any active website.