Stichting BDO v sabri abdoullah

WIPO Case No. D2023-1696

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Stichting BDO v. sabri abdoullah

Case No. D2023-1696

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Stichting BDO, Netherlands, represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, United States of America.

The Respondent is sabri abdoullah, Canada.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <bdotaxadministration.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 18, 2023.
On April 18, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On April 18, 2023, 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 (Registration Private, Domains by Proxy, LLC) and contact
information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 21,
2023, 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

April 25, 2023.

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 April 27, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 17, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 22, 2023.

The Center appointed Tuukka Airaksinen as the sole panelist in this matter on June 22, 2023. The Panel

page 2

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 consists of a network of public accounting firms dating back to 1963. The firms in the network together have over 97,000 employees in more than 1,700 offices in 164 countries around the world and combined have over USD 13 billion in revenues.

The Complainant is the owner of the trademark BDO, registered in several countries, including in the United

States of America, under No. 4854142 registered on November 17, 2015.

The disputed domain name was registered on January 11, 2023, and resolved to a parking page at the time
of filing the Complaint. Currently, the disputed domain name resolves to a webpage with Pay-Per-Click

(“PPC”) links to accounting and consulting services.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety combined with the words
“tax administration”, which are descriptive of the Complainant’s business as a public accounting firm.

bona fide offering of goods or services.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with

Given the Complainant’s and its trademark’s worldwide reputation, the Respondent must have been aware
of the Complainant when registering the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent has not used
the disputed domain name for any legitimate purposes, which is indication of bad faith.

The Respondent has concealed its identity with a privacy service, and the Complainant has demonstrated that its trademark is well-known, which means that there cannot have been any other purpose for registering the disputed domain name than to trade off on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant and its trademark. This indicates that the disputed domain name is being held in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

In order to obtain the transfer of a domain name, a complainant must prove the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, regardless of whether the respondent files a response to the complaint or not. The first element is that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. The second element a complainant must prove is that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. The third element a complainant must establish is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

page 3

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. Consequently, the Complainant must prove that it has rights to a trademark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to this trademark.

According to section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), “[t]he applicable Top Level Domain (‘TLD’) in a domain name (e.g., ‘.com’, ‘.club’, ‘.nyc’) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the

first element confusing similarity test”.

Furthermore, “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 finding of confusing similarity under the first element. The nature of such additional term(s) may however bear on assessment of the second and third elements”. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark as it includes the prevent confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name.

This means that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark and hence the first element of the Policy has been fulfilled.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name.

It is widely accepted among UDRP panels that once a complainant has made a prima facie showing indicating the absence of the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element of the Policy. See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0270, and section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

The Complainant has credibly submitted that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant in any way nor has it been authorized by the Complainant to use and register the disputed domain name, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has not made and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.

Moreover, the Panel finds that the nature of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant’s trademark. See section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that has not been rebutted by the Respondent. Considering the Panel’s findings below, the Panel finds that there are no other circumstances that provide the Respondent with any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy is fulfilled.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following

page 4

circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of
the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

“(i) circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable

consideration in excess of [the respondent’s] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain

name; or

(ii) [the respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or
service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the respondent has]

engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) [the respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business or

competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location.”

Considering that the Complainant has been using and registering its trademark for many years before the disputed domain name was registered, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its trademark when registering the disputed domain name. UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere

registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or well-known trademark by
an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. This is particularly so with domain
names incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term, as in this case. See section 3.1.4 of the WIPO
Overview 3.0.

The disputed domain name resolved to a parking page stating that if the user was interested in the disputed domain name, it should try the Domain Broker service of the Registrar. The disputed domain name currently resolves to a PPC website containing links to websites offering services that compete with those of the

Complainant. Using the disputed domain name for a PPC website containing links to third parties’ websites
that compete with the Complainant likely to generate revenue for the Respondent or another party when

Internet users click the links, in the circumstances of the case, is evidence of bad faith.

It is therefore evident that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name to intentionally 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, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. See section

3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the third element of the Policy is fulfilled.

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, <bdotaxadministration.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

/Tuukka Airaksinen/
Tuukka Airaksinen
Sole Panelist
Date: July 6, 2023