Virgo Laminates Limited v meritha vridawati, MARKETING

WIPO Case No. D2025-0657

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Virgo Laminates Limited v. meritha vridawati, MARKETING

Case No. D2025-0657

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Virgo Laminates Limited, India, represented by Wadhwa Law Chambers, India.

The Respondent is meritha vridawati, MARKETING, Indonesia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <virgoacp.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was f iled with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 19, 2025. On February 19, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 19, 2025, 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, Domain By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 20, 2025, 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 February 21, 2025.

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
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, and the proceedings commenced on February 26, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 18, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s default on March 25, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Taras Kyslyy as the sole panelist in this matter on March 28, 2025. 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 Indian company, part of the Virgo Group and specializes in the manufacturing of high pressure laminates, aluminum composite panels and allied products. The Virgo Group has a strong manufacturing and distribution network with over 3500 employees, 13 manufacturing plants and 22,500 retail outlets with a production capacity of more than 129 million sq. m. of laminate annually. The Complainant has received various awards and certifications which recognize and identify its quality of goods, as well as their extensive and environmentally sustainable business operations. The Complainant’s sales have consistently increased over the years due to considerable interest in brand building, advertising and marketing. The Complainant's turnover reached INR 12,107,330,000 in 2023-2024.

The Complainant and its affiliate companies own numerous trademark registrations for its VIRGO mark, including, for instance Indian trademark registration No. 859403, registered on June 4, 1999.

According to the Complaint, the Complainant is the owner of the domain names featuring its VIRGO mark, including <virgolam.com>, <virgopanel.com>, <virgoasia.com>, <virgobatteries.com> and others.

The disputed domain name was registered on June 26, 2018, and redirects to a website in the Indonesian language of fering gambling services.

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 the Complainant’s trademark, as it uses the VIRGO trademark in its entirety. “Virgo acp” is the brand marker for the Complainant’s Aluminium Composite Panels business and is a vertical of the Complainant’s VIRGO brand. Such usage of the same by the Respondent in the disputed domain name causes confusion due to the public being misled into believing that the disputed domain name is connected with the Complainant’s trademark.

The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not have prior rights such as trademarks or corporate/trade name over the term VIRGO. The Complainant has not authorized, licensed or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use its trademark or variations thereof . There is no commercial

relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent that would entitle the Respondent to the bona f ide offering of goods and services. The use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent is not a bona f ide use as the disputed domain name has been registered to capitalize on the goodwill and reputation commanded by the Complainant in its trademarks. The disputed domain name resolves to an unrelated landing page displaying information about Agen878, purportedly an online gaming agent offering slot games and gambling facilities. The said landing page prominently displays a button which when clicked, redirects the user to the official website of Agen878. Neither of the websites make any reference to the word “virgo”. There is no material available in the public domain that shows that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. It is further submitted that Agen878, the administrator of the gambling website to which the disputed domain name resolves, is not known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent is

page 3

not making any noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name only with the intent to lure customers interested in the products and services of the Complainant using a nearly identical disputed domain name and to divert that traf f ic to its own website for commercial gain. The landing page the disputed domain name resolves to leads to gambling facilities that are commercial in nature and can in no way be deemed to be referential use, commentary, criticism, praise, or parody.

Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of intentionally attracting for commercial gain Internet users. Such actions of the Respondent have been carried out by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the related websites. Considering the use of the Complainant's trademark for nearly three decades, it follows that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name having done no due diligence reasonably expected of it. The use of the disputed domain name to promote the gambling business through the creation of likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark is evidence of bad faith. The use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent creates a false association with the Complainant's trademark and the Complainant's sister entities, thereby leading to tarnishment of reputation and erosion of the

distinctiveness of the same.

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 f irst 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 trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Although the addition of other terms here, “acp”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel f inds the addition of such term does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

The Panel f inds the f irst 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 of ten 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

page 4

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 satisf ied 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 available evidence does not suggest that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, which could demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests (see, e.g., World Natural Bodybuilding Federation, Inc. v. Daniel Jones, TheDotCafe, WIPO Case No. D2008-0642).

The Complainant did not license or otherwise agree for use of its prior registered trademarks by the Respondent. Furthermore, the Panel notes that the Respondent has not shown that it registered the disputed domain name in connection with any non-trademark related meaning of the terms it comprises

rather than in reference to the Complainant’s trademark. Rather, the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark, followed by “acp”. The Complainant submitted evidence of its use of “Virgo ACP” to refer to “aluminum composite panels” which is a product the Complainant sells. Thus, taken together, and in the absence of a rebuttal from the Respondent, the composition of the disputed domain name and its use do not support a claim to rights or legitimate interests in this case, and the Panel is of the view that the disputed domain name is likely to unduly prof it f rom the value of the Complainant’s trademark.

The Panel f inds 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 registered the disputed domain name featuring the Complainant's known trademark with the addition of “acp” which may stand for “aluminum composite panels”, which is a core product of the Complainant. Further, one of the Complainant’s sister companies is named Virgo ACP Industries Pvt. Ltd. Thus, on the balance of probabilities the Panel f inds that the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant's trademark rights and targeted it when registering the disputed domain name, which is bad faith.

By using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, af f iliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website, which is bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.

The Respondent ignored its possibility to comment to the contrary and provide any reasonable explanations to prove its good faith while registering and using the disputed domain name.

The Panel f inds 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 <virgoacp.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Taras Kyslyy/ Taras Kyslyy Sole Panelist Date: April 11, 2025