WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Jones Day v. Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp. Case No. D2018-1041 1. The Parties

1.1 The Complainant is Jones Day of Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America (“United States” or “U.S.”), internally represented (the “Complainant”).

1.2 The Respondent is Domain Admin, WhoIs Privacy Corp. of Nassau, New Providence, Bahamas (the Respondent). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

2.1 The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

3.1 The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 10, 2018. On May 11, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On May 15, 2018, 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.

3.2 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”).

3.3 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 17, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 6, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 7, 2018.

3.4 The Center appointed Ike Ehiribe as the sole panelist in this matter on June 21, 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

4.1 The Complainant, Jones Day, traces its beginnings to 1893 in Cleveland, Ohio, United States, and is a global law firm with 43 offices in major centers of business and finance throughout the world. With more than 2,500 lawyers, including 550 lawyers in Europe and 200 lawyers in Asia, the Complainant ranks among the world’s largest law firms. In the United States the Complainant maintains offices in most cities of the United States. The Complainant’s international practice is quite significant as it maintains 10 offices in Europe, 10 offices in Asia and the Pacific, 3 offices in the Middle East and 2 offices in Latin America. Since July 1983 the Complainant has used the service mark JONES DAY to identify legal services that it provides. The Complainant has used the service mark JONES DAY in commerce in various other forms since 1939. The Complainant is said to own among others, two United States Service Mark registrations for the mark JONES DAY, U.S. Registration Number 2,212877 registered on December 22, 1998, and 2,316539 registered on February 8, 2000, for use in connection with legal services. Since 1983, the Complainant is said to have spent millions of dollars marketing its services worldwide using the JONES DAY marks. Since September 30, 1997, the Complainant has owned and operated its interactive website at the domain name .

4.2 According to the WhoIs information on record, the Disputed Domain Name was created on December 7, 2017.

4.3 The Respondent is recorded as being Domain Admin, WhoIs Privacy Corp. of Nassau New Providence, Bahamas. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

5.1 It is argued on behalf of the Complainant that the Disputed Domain Name , is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark as it incorporates the Complainant’s mark in its entirety. In this regard, the Complainant refers to paragraph 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). It is further asserted that the addition of the descriptive term “ip” does not prevent a confusing similarity between the Complainant’s mark and the Disputed Domain Name, on the contrary, the addition of the term “ip” reinforces the confusing similarity with the Complainant’s JONES DAY marks as it is a term that is descriptive of the services for which the Complainant’s marks have been registered. The Complainant states further that until recently, visitors attempting to access the website at the Disputed Domain Name were automatically redirected to the web page of the Complainant’s intellectual property practice and surmises that the Respondent undoubtedly intended to cause confusion between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark by exploiting the Complainant’s substantial goodwill and reputation.

5.2 The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name nor is the Respondent commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. It is also stated that there is no relationship or affiliation between the Complainant and the Respondent giving rise to any license, permission or other right by which the Respondent could own or use any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s registered mark. It is further emphasized that the Complainant has never condoned or consented to the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant also refers to the fact that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name using a privacy shield in order as to hide the true identity of the registrant and invites the Panel to presume that the Respondent and the true registrant are not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, the Complainant’s mark or variation thereof. Finally, in this regard it is argued that the Respondent has not used the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor has the Respondent used the Disputed Domain Name for any noncommercial or fair use purpose as the website and email address associated with the Disputed Domain Name have been used to make deceptive intellectual property violation reports against various sellers on Amazon.

5.3 On the question of bad faith registration and use, the Complainant alludes to the following circumstances to assert that the Complainant has also engaged in bad faith registration and use. Firstly the mere registration of the Disputed Domain Name which is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark is by itself a clear indication of bad faith. This is more the case as it is pointed out that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in the year 2017, nearly 125 years after the Complainant was founded, 35 years after the Complainant began using the JONES DAY marks, nearly 20 years after the Complainant registered the JONES DAY mark and more than 20 years after the Complainant’s registration of its domain name . Secondly, the Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Name