Singhania University v Domain Administrator, Transure Enterprise Ltd

WIPO Case No. D2024-4150

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Singhania University v. Domain Administrator, Transure Enterprise Ltd

Case No. D2024-4150

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Singhania University, India, represented by Lexport, India.

The Respondent is Domain Administrator, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Hong Kong, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <singhaniauniversity.com> is registered with Above.com, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 9, 2024.
On October 9, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On October 16, 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 Privacy, Above.com Pty. Ltd.) and contact
information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 16,
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 amended Complaint on

October 21, 2024.

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 October 30, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was November 19, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 20, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Lynda J. Zadra-Symes as the sole panelist in this matter on November 25, 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 statutory university established by an Act of the Rajasthan legislature in India that date. The name SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY refers only to the Complainant, and no other entity has the right to use that name under Indian law.

(Singhania University, Pacheri Bari (Jhunjhunu Act), 2008 (Act No. 6 of 2008)). The Act is effective since

The Complainant is also the owner and operator of the domain names <singhaniauniversity.co.in> and
<singhaniauniversity.ac.in>, which were registered in 2007 and 2015, respectively.

The disputed domain name was created on January 8, 2016, and resolves to a website displaying links to university institutions unrelated to the Complainant.

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 includes the Complainant’s name in its entirety, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

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 Panel finds the Complainant has established unregistered trademark or service mark rights for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.3.

The Complainant was established by an Act of the Rajasthan legislature in India effective October 21, 2007.

The Complainant has used the name SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY continuously since that time.

The entirety of the Complainant’s name is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the
disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview
3.0, section 1.7.

page 3

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 Policy or otherwise.

The disputed domain name directs to a landing page with links to other unrelated universities. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with noncommercial or fair use or a bona fide offering of

goods or services.

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.

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.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a landing page with links to university institutions that are unrelated to the Complainant. The links on the Respondent’s website change regularly, indicating that the Respondent is actively using the website with an intention to misrepresent and misdirect Internet users seeking the Complainant for the Respondent’s commercial gain, such as pay-per-click revenue. By registering and using the disputed domain name, the Respondent is attempting to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website.

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

page 4

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 <singhaniauniversity.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Lynda J. Zadra-Symes/
Lynda J. Zadra-Symes
Sole Panelist
Date: December 9, 2024