Verizon Trademark Services LLC v shi lei, linpingshijidadao

WIPO Case No. D2023-0181

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Verizon Trademark Services LLC v. shi lei, linpingshijidadao

Case No. D2023-0181

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Verizon Trademark Services LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented internally.

The Respondent is shi lei, linpingshijidadao, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <verizonplusplay.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with

Sav.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 13, 2023. On January 13, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On the same day, 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 (PRIVACY PROTECTION) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 16, 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 amendment to the Complaint on January 17, 2023.

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 January 18, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was February 7, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response.

Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 8, 2023.

The Center appointed Flip Jan Claude Petillion as the sole panelist in this matter on February 13, 2023. The
Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and

page 2

Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the

Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant, Verizon Trademark Services LLC, is an intellectual property holding company of the Verizon group. The Verizon group provides technology and communications products and services. In 2021, the Verizon group generated revenues of USD 133.6 billion and employed a workforce of

approximately 118,400 employees.

The Complainant invokes the following registered trademarks for VERIZON:

- VERIZON, United States trademark registered under No. 2,886,813, on September 21, 2004, in
classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41 and 42, and;

- VERIZON (figurative), United States trademark depicted below, registered under No. 2,879,802, on
August 31, 2004, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41 and 42:

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 15 of the Rules provides that the Panel is to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, the Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it

deems applicable. 

The onus is on the Complainant to make out his case and it is apparent, both from the terms of the Policy and the decisions of past UDRP panels, that the Complainant must show that all three elements set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been established before any order can be made to transfer the Disputed

Domain Name.  As the UDRP proceedings are administrative, the standard of proof is the balance of

probabilities. 

Thus, for the Complainant to succeed it must prove, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, that: 

(i)        The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which

the Complainant has rights;  and 

(ii)	The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name;  and
(iii)	The Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Panel will therefore deal with each of these requirements. 

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

To prove this element, the Complainant must first establish that there is a trademark or service mark in which

it has rights.  The Complainant has clearly established that there are trademarks in which it has rights.  The

Complainant’s VERIZON trademark has been registered and used in connection to the Complainant’s

technology and communications products and services. 

The Disputed Domain Name <verizonplusplay.com> incorporates the Complainant’s VERIZON trademark and adds the words “plus” and “play”. 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 (see section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)). 

Additionally, it is well established that generic Top-Level-Domains (“gTLDs”), here “.com”, may be disregarded when considering whether a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in 

which a complainant has rights. 

In light of the above, the Panel considers the Disputed Domain Name to be confusingly similar to the

Complainant’s VERIZON trademark. 

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of establishing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. 

As established by previous UDRP panels, it is sufficient for the Complainant to make a prima facie showing

that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name in order to place the

burden of production on the Respondent (see section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). 

The Panel notes that the Respondent has not apparently been commonly known by the Disputed Domain
Name and that the Respondent does not seem to have acquired trademark or service mark rights. 
According to the information provided by the Registrar, the Respondent is “shi lei” from the organization

page 4

“linpingshijidadao”.  The Respondent’s use and registration of the Disputed Domain Name was not

authorized by the Complainant.  There are no indications that a connection between the Complainant and the

Respondent exists or existed. 

Where a domain name consists of a trademark plus an additional term, UDRP panels have largely held that 

such composition cannot constitute fair use if it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship

or endorsement by the trademark owner (see section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). The Disputed

Domain  Name incorporates the Complainant’s VERIZON trademark in its entirety and simply adds the

descriptive words “plus” and “play”. The Complainant shows that one of its products and services is called
“+play”. The Panel therefore finds that the Disputed Domain Name carries a risk of implied affiliation with the

Complainant and cannot constitute fair use in the circumstances of this case.  

Beyond looking at the domain name and the nature of any additional terms appended to it, UDRP panels assess whether the overall facts and circumstances of the case, such as the content of the website linked to

the disputed domain name and the absence of a response, support a fair use or not (see sections

2.5.2 and 2.5.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). 

In this case, the Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair
use of the Disputed Domain Name. According to evidence provided by the Complainant, the Disputed
Domain Name resolved to a parking page containing PPC links such as “Prepaid Mobile Phone Plans”.

Given the communications services provided by the Complainant’s group, the Panel finds that such sponsored links may capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s mark or mislead Internet users, which cannot be considered as a use of the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services (see section 2.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). 

The Disputed Domain Name currently resolves to a blocked web page.

The Respondent had the opportunity to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests but did not do so.  In the

absence of a Response from the Respondent, the prima facie case established by the Complainant has not

been rebutted. 

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the Respondent has no rights or

legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.  In light of the above, the Complainant succeeds on the

second element of the Policy. 

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the Disputed Domain Name was

registered in bad faith and that it is being used in bad faith (see section 4.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, for

example, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 and Control

Techniques Limited v. Lektronix Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2006-1052). 

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exclusive list of factors, any one of which may demonstrate bad
faith.  Among these factors demonstrating bad faith registration and use is the use of a domain name to

intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or

endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location. 

In the present case, the Panel finds it inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant and its trademark rights when it registered the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant’s marks predate the Disputed Domain Name by approximately 18 years and the Panel observes that previous UDRP panels have already acknowledged the well-known and distinctive character of the Complainant’s VERIZON mark (see, e.g., Verizon Trademark Services LLC v. Lin Jin Jiang, WIPO Case No. D2022-0344; Verizon

Trademark Services v. gelincik kaya, WIPO Case No. D2021-0882; Verizon Trademark Services LLC v. The

page 5

Helard Group, WIPO Case No. D2012-0277). Moreover, the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s distinctive trademark in its entirety with the addition of the words “plus” and “play”. As explained above, this combination can easily be considered to refer to the Complainant’s “+play” services. In the Panel’s view, the Respondent’s awareness of the Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of registration suggests bad faith (see Red Bull GmbH v. Credit du Léman SA, Jean-Denis Deletraz, WIPO Case No. D2011-2209; BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation v. Serena, Axel, WIPO Case No. D2006-0007, where it was held that the respondent acted in bad faith when registering the disputed domain name, because widespread and long-standing advertising and marketing of goods and services under the trademarks in question, the inclusion of the entire trademark in the domain name, and the similarity of products implied by addition of a telecommunications services suffix (“voip”) suggested knowledge of the complainant’s rights in the trademarks).

According to the Complainant’s evidence, the Respondent used the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to a parking page containing PPC links relating to the Complainant’s technology and communications products and services. In the Panel’s view, this indicates that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s

trademark.  While the intention to earn click-through-revenue is not in itself illegitimate, the Panel finds that

the use of the Disputed Domain Name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark (as is the
case here) to obtain click-through-revenue constitutes bad faith use (see Mpire Corporation v. Michael Frey,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0258; L’Oréal, Biotherm, Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie v. Unasi, Inc, WIPO
Case No. D2005-0623). The fact that the PPC links may be automatically generated by a third party cannot
discharge the Respondent of any responsibility for the content appearing on the website connected to the
Disputed Domain Name under its control (see section 3.5 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).

The fact that the Disputed Domain Name currently resolves to a blocked page does not prevent a finding of bad faith. In any event, the combination of the Complainant’s VERIZON mark with descriptive terms referring to a product or service of the Complainant makes it difficult to conceive any plausible legitimate future use of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent.

By failing to respond to the Complaint, the Respondent did not take any initiative to contest the foregoing. 

Pursuant to paragraph 14 of the Rules, the Panel may draw the conclusions it considers appropriate. 

Therefore, the Panel finds that, on the balance of probabilities, it is established that the Disputed Domain

Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.  In light of the above, the Complainant also succeeds on

the third and last 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 Name <verizonplusplay.com> be transferred to the Complainant. 

/Flip Jan Claude Petillion/
Flip Jan Claude Petillion
Sole Panelist
Date: February 27, 2023

The Complainant has licensed the use of the above trademarks to the companies of the Verizon group.

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on March 3, 2022. According to the Complainant’s evidence,
the Disputed Domain Name appeared to resolve to a parking page containing sponsored links relating to the
Complainant’s products and services. The Panel observes that the website linked to the Disputed Domain

Name is currently blocked.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant considers the Disputed Domain Name to be confusingly similar to a trademark in which it claims to have rights.

parties. 

The Complainant further claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name but rather intends to monetize the VERIZON mark by offering sponsored links that are of the type consumers would expect to see on the Complainant’s website in order to divert customers to websites of third
Disputed Domain Name.  According to the Complainant, the Respondent is neither affiliated with the

Complainant nor has it been authorized to use the VERIZON mark in any manner.  Also, according to the

Finally, the Complainant claims that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad

faith.  According to the Complainant, the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name to

take advantage of the goodwill and the reputation of the Complainant’s VERIZON marks by diverting Internet

users to a pay-per-click (“PPC”) landing page for the Respondent’s commercial gain. 

B. Respondent

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