Pest Control Office Ltd v Mr Banksy, Dyrehotell Pets Paradise As

WIPO Case No. D2025-0129

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Pest Control Office Ltd v. Mr Banksy, DYREHOTELL PETS PARADISE AS

Case No. D2025-0129

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Pest Control Office Ltd, United Kingdom, represented by Howard Kennedy LLP, United

Kingdom.

The Respondent is Mr Banksy, DYREHOTELL PETS PARADISE AS, Norway.

2. The Domain Names and Registrars

The disputed domain names <bestcontroloffice.com> is registered with Domeneshop AS dba domainnameshop.com (the “Registrar”). The disputed domain name <bestcontroloffice.org> is registered with Key-Systems GmbH (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 14, 2025. On January 14, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On January 14, 2025, and January 16, 2025, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification responses disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent (“Redacted for Privacy, Dyrehotell Pets Paradise AS”) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 16, 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 January 21, 2025.

On January 16, 2025, the Center informed the Parties in English and Norwegian, that the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name <bestcontroloffice.com> is Norwegian. On January 21, 2025, the Complainant requested English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not

submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission.

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”).

page 2

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 31, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was February 20, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 21, 2025.

The Center appointed Knud Wallberg as the sole panelist in this matter on March 3, 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 is a United Kingdom company that was established in 2008. The Complainant is the official handling service acting on behalf of the anonymous artist known as Banksy and is solely responsible for issuing certificates of authenticity in relation to Banksy's work.

The Complainant owns several trademark registrations for PEST CONTROL OFFICE including United
Kingdom (“UK”) Trademark Registration No. UK00918221015, applied for on April 3, 2020, and registered on
August 25, 2020, European Union Trademark Registration No. 018221015 also registered on August 25,
2020, United States of America Trademark Registration No. 88871422 applied for on April 14, 2020, and
registered on August 10, 2021, and Australian Trademark Registration No. 2081612, applied for on April 15,

2020, and registered on November 11, 2020, all for services in international classes 35, 41, 42 and 45.

The Complainant operates a website located at “ (“the Complainant’s website”),
which includes a drawing (in a red circle) of a rat wearing an apron and holding a broom, and states “Pest
Control”, “Parent / Legal guardian for the artist Banksy” and “PLEASE BE VIGILANT TO CYBER FRAUD

Ensure all interactions and correspondence ONLY come from the domain pestcontroloffice.com”.

The disputed domain name <bestcontroloffice.com> was registered on April 15, 2020, and it redirects to the
website connected to the disputed domain name <bestcontroloffice.org>. The disputed domain name
<bestcontroloffice.org> was registered on April 15, 2020, and it resolves to a website that displays drawings
of rats in aprons, similar to the artwork on the Complainant’s website with the following heading “BEST
CONTROL OFFICE. Original Artworks from the Artist Banksy. Enter the Arena”. The website has a tab for

Newsletter and at the bottom there is a copyright notice “© 2025 BANKSY”.

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 names.

Notably, the Complainant contends that the Respondent's use of the sign “BEST CONTROL OFFICE” in the disputed domain names and on the website displayed at the disputed domain names is use of a confusingly similar sign to its trademarks in relation to the offering of a service which is identical to or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s services.

The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names and that the present use of the disputed domain names by the Respondent is very likely to mislead the public and to suggest a connection between the disputed domain names and the Complainant when there is no connection.

The Complainant also argues that it initiated a UDRP proceeding concerning the domain name
<pestcontroloffice.org> against the director of the current Respondent, and that the website under the

page 3

domain name has links to the disputed domain name <bestcontroloffice.org>. Pest Control Office Ltd v.
“Lawrence Banksy”, WIPO Case No. D2024-4850.

The Complainant finally asserts that the disputed domain names have been registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent. It is thus evident that the disputed domain names were registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant and that by using the disputed domain names, the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to the Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s website and carrying out for financial gain, the services offered by the Complainant.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1 Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding

The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name <bestcontroloffice.com> is Norwegian. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement.

The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be under the disputed domain name is in English.

The Respondent has not challenged the Complainant’s language request.

In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs.

Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English.

6.2 Substantive Issues

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.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following:

(i) that the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;

(ii)       that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii)      that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the burden of proving that all these elements are present lies with the of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under the Rules, or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate.

page 4

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 Panel finds the Complainant’s trademark PEST CONTROL OFFICE is recognizable within the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

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 names. 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 names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

Furthermore, the Panel finds that the website has a rat drawing in apron sweeping the floor similar to the artwork present on the Complainant’s website and the website has a copyright notice giving the impression of being authorized or connected to the Complainant. The Panel thinks that the overall look and feel (use of only black, white and red as colors) of the website is similar to the Complainant’s website. Therefore, the Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain names to impersonate the Complainant can never confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

The panel notes that for the registration of the disputed domain names the name “Mr.Banksy” was provided. legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain names.

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.

page 5

The disputed domain name was registered after the Complainant’s UK trademark application for PEST CONTROL OFFICE and on the same day as the Complainant’s Australian trademark application. In the absence of any explanation from the Respondent, the Panel finds it more likely than not that the Respondent had the Complainant in mind when registering the disputed domain name. This is further supported by the unrebutted evidence which shows that the director of the current Respondent’s organization registered a domain name which incorporated the Complainant’s trademark and referred to the disputed domain name <bestcontroloffice.org> under the website connected to that domain name.

In the present case, the Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that the Respondent
impersonated the Complainant’s website and has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain,
Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the
source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s websites or of a service on the

Respondent’s website. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4.

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 names <bestcontroloffice.com> and <bestcontroloffice.org> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Knud Wallberg/
Knud Wallberg
Sole Panelist
Date: March 26, 2025