Rocket Global, LLC v Amine Belgounche

WIPO Case No. D2024-1022

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Rocket Global, LLC v. Amine Belgounche

Case No. D2024-1022

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Rocket Global, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by

Silverstein Legal, United States.

The Respondent is Amine Belgounche, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <chatrandomly.com> is registered with DropCatch.com LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 11, 2024.

On March 12, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 13, 2024, 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 (Redacted for GDPR Privacy, NY) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 15, 2024, 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 amendment to the Complaint on March 15, 2024.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 the Respondent of the
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 18, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph

5, the due date for Response was April 7, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly,

the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 9, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed W. Scott Blackmer as the sole panelist in this matter on April 12, 2024. 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 limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Wyoming, United

States, and headquartered in Sheridan, Wyoming. The Complainant operates a website (the “Complainant’s website”) at “ which provides “a video chat platform that allows users to anonymously

chat with random people by video”, to “meet cool new people, make new friends or find romance”. Users

can filter chatters by gender, country, and sexual orientation. The Complainant’s website offers video and

text chat via computer or smartphone, with associated mobile apps and social media pages.

The CHATRANDOM word mark has been used since the Complainant’s website was launched in February 2011, as stated on the Complainant’s website and in its application for United States trademark registration. The website now claims over thirteen million registered users from 185 countries. The Complainant’s

CHATRANDOM services have been featured in online publications including “VentureBeat”.

The Complainant holds the following relevant trademark registrations, among others, by assignment:

Mark	Jurisdiction	Registration	Registration Date	Goods or
Number	Services
CHATRANDOM	United Kingdom	3528608	December 18,	Downloadable
(word)	2020	software, communications services, provision of Internet-based communications
platform; IC 9, 45
CHATRANDOM	United States	6581664	December 7, 2021	Communications
(standard	services, platform
characters)	as a service for webcam and text
chatting; IC 38, 42
CHATRANDOM	European Union	18611193	May 25, 2022	Downloadable
(figurative)	software, communications services, provision of Internet-based communications platform; IC 9, 38,
42

The Registrar reports that the disputed domain name was created on March 20, 2023, and registered in the name of the Respondent Amine Belgounche, giving a postal address in the State of New York, United States and a Gmail contact email address.

The Complaint attaches a screenshot of a parking page hosted by dan.com, “a GoDaddy brand” offering the

disputed domain name for sale for USD 495 and advertising the domain services of dan.com. At the time of this Decision, the disputed domain name resolves to a GoDaddy landing page offering the disputed domain

name for sale for USD 100 and advertising GoDaddy’s domain services.

page 3

On February 22, 2024, the Respondent sent an email to the Complainant’s counsel asking if the

Complainant was “interested in acquiring” the disputed domain name. The Complainant’s counsel

responded with a cease-and-desist letter. The Respondent replied stating that the disputed domain name

was “available for sale on GoDaddy” and changed the registration to a domain privacy service. The

Respondent did not reply to a further communication from the Complainant’s counsel, and this proceeding

followed.

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.

Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its registered CHATRANDOMLY mark, as the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. The

Respondent has no permission to use the Complainant’s mark, and there is no indication that the

Respondent is known by a corresponding name or has used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide commercial offering or a legitimate noncommercial fair use. Instead, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to misdirect Internet users to a parking page, where the Respondent has attempted

to sell the disputed domain name, and the Respondent has expressly attempted to sell it to the Complainant

for an amount that likely exceeds out-of-pocket costs. The CHATRANDOM mark is well-known, and the

Complainant concludes that the “Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name primarily to

profit from and exploit” that mark.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that a complainant must demonstrate each of the following:

(i)        the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the

complainant has rights;

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

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

Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, “[a] Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and

documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that

it deems applicable”.

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 relevant trademark or service mark (the registered
CHATRANDOM mark) for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

page 4

The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. The addition of the adverbial

suffix “ly” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Accordingly, the Panel finds that 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

demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the connection with any legitimate business or noncommercial fair use. While the buying and selling of domain names can itself be a legitimate business activity, the Respondent has not come forward with evidence to show that the Respondent is engaged in this business. The Respondent has also not offered any evidence or argument to rebut the reasonable inference from the circumstances of the case that the Respondent registered this particular domain name for its trademark rather than descriptive value. This inference is

particularly compelling on the present record, where the Complainant’s trademark is internationally well-

known, both Parties are located in the United States, and the Respondent approached the Complainant

offering to sell the disputed domain name.

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 notes that the Respondent was likely aware of the Complainant’s mark, which

achieved notoriety online with a rapidly growing, international user base, and as indicated by the fact that the

Respondent approached the Complainant directly, offering to sell the disputed domain name. Although the

advertised sales price was not enormous, it was still likely substantially in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-

pocket registration costs, a sign of bad faith under the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(i). Meanwhile, the disputed

domain name incorporating the Complainant’s mark in its entirety continued to misdirect Internet users to a

site advertising not only the disputed domain name but the domain services of a third party. Such

misdirection for commercial gain also constitutes bad faith, as indicated by the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv).

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

page 5

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 <chatrandomly.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/W. Scott Blackmer/

W. Scott Blackmer

Sole Panelist
Date: April 25, 2024