WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Dimitri Do Bairro Case No. D2017-2245 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette of Moscow, Russian Federation, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Dimitri Do Bairro of Champigny sur Marne, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with OVH (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint in English was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 14, 2017. On November 14, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 20, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details and stating that the language of the Registration Agreement is French.

On November 29, 2017, the Center sent a communication to the Parties, inviting the Complainant to either submit satisfactory evidence of an agreement between the Complainant and the Respondent to the effect that the proceedings should be in English, or to submit the Complaint translated into French, or to submit a request for English to be the language of the administrative proceedings. The Respondent was also invited to submit comments. On December 1, 2017, the Complainant submitted a request for English to be the language of the proceedings. The Respondent did not reply to this request.

The Center verified that 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, in French and English, and the proceedings commenced on December 5, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 25, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 5, 2018.

The Center appointed Benoit Van Asbroeck as the sole panelist in this matter on January 12, 2018. 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, Andrey Ternovskiy, is the owner and creator of Chatroulette, an online chat website that pairs random people from around the world together for real-time, webcam-based conversations. Chatroulette is known for providing online video chat services and online video social introduction and networking services. In 2017, the Complainant’s website was ranked as the 15,291st most popular site in the United States, and 14,908th globally by the website ranking system “”.

The Complainant submitted evidence that it holds trademark rights for CHATROULETTE in the European Union for classes 35, 38 and 42 registered under number 008944076 since December 4, 2012. The Complainant further submitted evidence that it holds trademark rights for CHATROULETTE in the Russian Federation for classes 35, 38 and 42 registered under number 429957 since February 10, 2011. The Complainant also submitted evidence that it owns a trademark in the United States for CHATROULETTE for classes 28 and 45 under number 4445843 since December 10, 2013. Furthermore, the Complainant submitted evidence that it is the owner of the trademark rights for CHATROULETTE.TO for classes 35, 38 and 42 registered under number 008946352 since August 19, 2010. All four trademarks will be referred to as “the Trademarks”.

The disputed domain name was registered on September 12, 2013, well after the Complainant secured rights to the Trademarks. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers chat and online dating services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in the present case, as follows:

(a) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.

The Complainant contends, relying on Rollerblade, Inc. v McCrady,WIPO Case No. D2000-0429, that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.

The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name can be considered as capturing, in its entirety, Complainant’s CHATROULETTE trademark and simply adding the generic term “ze” (French expression meaning “the” – it is meant to portray the manner in which a person with a strong French accent would pronounce the English word “the”) to the beginning of the trademark. Moreover, relying on Pfizer Inc. v. Intermeds, LTD/ John Velasquez,WIPO Case No. D2005-0153, the Complainant contends that the mere addition of the term “ze” does not negate the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Furthermore, the Complainant submits that the addition of a hyphen between the term “ze” and Complainant’s trademark CHATROULETTE does not diminish the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s Trademarks (Chernow Communications, Inc. v. Jonathan D. Kimball,WIPO Case No. D2000-0119). (b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant asserts that it is the owner of the Trademarks CHATROULETTE and CHATROULETTE.TO and therefore has the exclusive right to use these Trademarks. The Complainant states that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.

The Complainant affirms that it has not granted permission to the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in any manner. It has not licensed authorized, or permitted the Respondent to register domain names incorporating the Complainant’s Trademarks. The Complainant stated that the Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant in any way.

The Complainant further submits that the pertinent WhoIs information identifies the Registrant as “Do Bairro Dimitri” suggesting that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name, and has therefore acquired no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent makes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant moreover contends that the Respondent offers and attempts to sell services, which directly compete with the Complainant’s own offerings. Relying on America Online, Inc. v. Xianfeng Fu,WIPO Case No. D2000-1374, the Complainantsubmits that the Respondent should be held to possess no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Furthermore, the Complainant asserts that the metadata associated with the disputed domain name specifically refers to the Complainant and its trademark. The Complainant submits that this confirms that the Respondent is using this metadata to increase the likelihood that an Internet user searching for the Complainant through a search engine would come across the disputed domain name and subsequently become confused as to its source. The metadata associated with the disputed domain name is as follows:

content="zeChatRoulette is the biggest chatroulette of the web. Are grouped on Ze-
Chatroulette all roulette chat of the web."/>

.

The Complainant further submits that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on September 12, 2013, which is after the Complainant filed for registration of its CHATROULETTE Trademark in 2010 and also after the Complainant’s first use in commerce of the CHATROULETTE mark in 2009. (c) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was