Rivian IP Holdings, LLC v Stanislav Arutin

WIPO Case No. D2023-2619

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Rivian IP Holdings, LLC v. Stanislav Arutin

Case No. D2023-2619

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Rivian IP Holdings, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by

Coates IP, United States.

The Respondent is Stanislav Arutin, Republic of Moldova.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <stellar-rivian.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Registrar of Domain

Names REG.RU LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 18, 2023. On June 19, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verif ication in connection with the Domain Name. On June 20, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which dif fered from the named Respondent (Protection of Private Person) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 22, 2023 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amended Complaint on June 24, 2023.

The Registrar also indicated that the language of the Registration Agreement is Russian. On June 22, 2023, the Center sent an email communication to the Parties in both English and Russian inviting the Complainant to submit satisfactory evidence of an agreement between the Complainant and the Respondent to the ef fect that the proceeding should be in English; or submit the Complaint translated into Russian; or submit a request for English to be the language of the administrative proceedings. The Respondent was also invited to comment on the language of the proceeding. On June 24, 2023, the Complainant submitted its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.

The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for

page 2

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 notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint in both English and Russian, and the proceedings commenced on July 6, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 26, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s default on August 9, 2023.

The Center appointed Piotr Nowaczyk as the sole panelist in this matter on August 24, 2023. The Panel
f inds 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 an American electric automobile manufacturer and technology company founded in

2009. In particular, it produces electric pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles.

The Complainant is the owner of numerous RIVIAN trademark registrations, including:

- the United States Trademark Registration RIVIAN No. 6,075,546, registered on June 09, 2020;

- the United States Trademark Registration RIVIAN No. 6,496,359, registered on September 28, 2021;
and

- the United States Trademark Registration RIVIAN No. 6,913,276, registered on November 29, 2022.

The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <rivian.com> incorporating its RIVIAN trademark.

The Domain Name was registered on June 3, 2023.

At the time of submitting the Complaint, the Domain Name has redirected Internet users to the inactive website.

5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant

The Complainant requests the transfer of the Domain Name. According to the Complainant, each of three elements specif ied in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisf ied in the present case.

First, the Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the

Complainant has rights.

Second, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has neither rights nor legitimate interests in the

Domain Name.

Third, the Complainant submits that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings
6.1. Preliminary Matter – Language of the Proceeding

The language of the Registration Agreement for the Domain Name is Russian. Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that “unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding”. The Panel may also order that any documents submitted in a language other than that of the proceeding be translated.

As noted by previous UDRP panels, paragraph 11 of the Rules must be applied in accordance with the overriding requirements of paragraphs 10(b) and 10(c) of the Rules that the parties are treated equally, that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case, and that the proceeding takes place with due expedition (see, e.g., General Electric Company v. Edison Electric Corp. a/k/a Edison Electric Corp. General Energy, Edison GE, Edison-GE and EEEGE.COM, WIPO Case No. D2006-0334).

The Complainant has submitted a request that the language of the proceeding be English. The Complainant argues that the Complainant is based in the United States and it does not have a presence in the Russian Federation. Moreover, the Complainant notes that the Domain Name solely consists of Complainant’s RIVIAN trademark and the English term “stellar.” Furthermore, the Complainant submits that requiring the Complainant to translate and communicate in Russian would be unduly burdensome and increase the cost on the Complainant’s part.

The Panel agrees that substantial additional expense and delay would likely be incurred if the Complaint had to be translated into Russian. Moreover, the Panel notes that the Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding, even though it was notified in English and Russian regarding the language of the proceeding.

Thus, taking these circumstances into account, the Panel finds that it is appropriate to exercise its discretion and allow the proceeding to be conducted in English.

6.2. Substantive Matters – Three Elements

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy places a burden on the Complainant to prove the presence of three separate elements, which can be summarized as follows:

(i)        the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(ii)       the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and

(iii)      the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The requested remedy may only be granted if the above criteria are met. At the outset, the Panel notes that the applicable standard of proof in UDRP cases is the “balance of probabilities” or “preponderance of the evidence”. See section 4.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Under the f irst element, the Complainant must establish that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

page 4

The Complainant holds valid RIVIAN trademark registrations. The Domain Name incorporates this
trademark in its entirety. As numerous UDRP panels have held, incorporating a trademark in its entirety is
suf ficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark (see PepsiCo,
Inc. v. PEPSI, SRL (a/k/a P.E.P.S.I.) and EMS COMPUTER INDUSTRY (a/k/a EMS), WIPO Case No.
D2003-0696).

The addition of the term “stellar-” in the Domain Name does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s RIVIAN trademark. UDRP panels have consistently held that where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity under the f irst element. See section 1.8, WIPO Overview 3.0.

The Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) “.com” in the Domain Name is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. See section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

Given the above, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s RIVIAN trademark. Thus, the Complainant has proved the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the second element, the Complainant must prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

The Respondent may establish a right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name by demonstrating in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy any of the following:

(i)        that it has used or made preparations to use the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to the dispute; or

(ii)       that it is commonly known by the Domain Name, even if it has not acquired any trademark rights; or

(iii)      that it is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark.

Although given the opportunity, the Respondent has not submitted any evidence indicating that any of the circumstances foreseen in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy are present in this case.

On the contrary, it results f rom the evidence on record that the Complainant’s RIVIAN trademark registrations predate the Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name. There is no evidence in the case record that the Complainant has licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the RIVIAN trademark or to register the Domain Name incorporating this trademark. There is also no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name.

Ann Summers Limited v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Mingchun Chen, WIPO Case No. D2018-0625; Carrefour v. WhoisGuard, Inc., WhoisGuard Protected / Robert Jurek, Katrin Kafut, Purchasing clerk, Starship Tapes & Records, WIPO Case No. D2017-2533).

Moreover, it results from the evidence on record that the Respondent does not make use of the Domain noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. On the contrary, the Domain Name has redirected Internet users to the Complainant’s official website at <rivian.com>. UDRP panels have consistently held that use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to the complainant’s own website cannot confer any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name to the respondent (see

page 5

Given the above, the Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances, which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Thus, there is no evidence in the case f ile that refutes the Complainant’s prima facie case. The Panel concludes that the Complainant has also proved the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Under the third element, the Complainant must prove that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Bad faith under the UDRP is broadly understood to occur where a respondent takes unfair advantage of or otherwise abuses a complainant’s mark. See section 3.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, evidence of bad faith registration and use includes without limitation:

(i)        circumstances indicating the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the owner of a trademark or to a competitor of the trademark owner, for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of- pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii)       circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered in order to prevent the owner of a trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided it is a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii)      circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv)      circumstances indicating that the domain name has intentionally been used in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on a website or location.

As indicated above, the Complainant’s rights in the RIVIAN trademark predate the registration of the Domain Name. This Panel f inds that the Respondent was or should have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration. This finding is supported by the fact that the Domain Name has been used to redirect Internet users to the Complainant’s own website. Moreover, it has been proven to the Panel’s satisfaction that the Complainant’s RIVIAN trademark is well known and unique to the Complainant. Thus, the Respondent could not likely reasonably ignore the reputation of products under this trademark. In sum, the Respondent in all likelihood registered the Domain Name with the expectation of taking advantage of the reputation of the Complainant’s RIVIAN trademark.

Furthermore, as previously noted, the Domain Name has been used in bad faith by the Respondent to redirect Internet users to the Complainant’s official website at <rivian.com>. The Panels have consistently found that redirecting the disputed domain name to the complainant’s website constitutes an evidence to support a finding that a respondent has registered a domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark. See section 3.1.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

In the present case, the redirection from the Domain Name to Complainant’s of f icial website reinforces the likelihood of confusion. Internet users are likely to consider the Domain Name as in some way endorsed by or connected with Complainant, particularly taking into consideration the reputation of the RIVIAN trademark. See, Ann Summers Limited v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Mingchun Chen, WIPO Case No. D2018-0625; Marie Claire Album v. Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc. / Dexter Ouwehand, DO, WIPO Case No. D2017-1367.

page 6

For the reasons discussed above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proved the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 Domain Name <stellar-rivian.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Piotr Nowaczyk/
Piotr Nowaczyk
Sole Panelist
Date: September 13, 2023