WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0126789266 / Matthew Allan, Injektion Media Ltd Case No. D2018-1184 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette of Sliema, Malta, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0126789266 of Toronto, Canada / Matthew Allan, Injektion Media Ltd of Vancouver, Canada. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 29, 2018. On May 29, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On May 29, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name(s) which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 7, 2018, 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 June 12, 2018.

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 June 13, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 3, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 4, 2018.

The Center appointed Nick J. Gardner as the sole panelist in this matter on July 16, 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

Chatroulette, created and owned by the Complainant is an online chat website that pairs random people from around the world together for real-time, webcam-based conversations.

The Complainant created the Chatroulette service and website in 2009 and shortly after its launch it began to receive 500 visitors per day while continuing to experience consistent growth. Only one month after its launch the number of visitors grew to 50,000 per day, approximately 1.5 million per month.

The Complainant owns a number of trademark registrations for the word mark CHATROULETTE, including for example United States of America Trademark Registration No. 4445843 with priority of January 10, 2011, and European Union Trademark Registration No. 008944076 with priority of March 10, 2010. These trademarks are referred to as the “CHATROULETTE trademark” in this decision.

Since November 16, 2009 the Complainant has owned the domain name which is linked to the principal website for his Chatroulette service.

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on January 1, 2010 and it redirects to a website which provides what it describes as “random video chat for gay guys”.

Prior to filing its Complaint the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent requesting cessation of any use of the Disputed Domain Name and transfer of it to the Complainant. The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to his CHATROULETTE trademark since it reproduces the trademark in its entirety and addition of the descriptive term “gay” is not sufficient to distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the Complainant’s trademark.

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and is unable to rely on any of the circumstances set out in paragraphs 4(c)(i), (ii) or (iii) of the Policy.

The Complainant states that the Respondent incorporated his CHATROULETTE trademark in the Disputed Domain Name with the obvious intent to capitalize on the reputation of it by diverting Internet users seeking the Complainant’s services to the Respondent’s website. B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Procedural Matters

The Panel notes that no Response has been received from the Respondent. However given the Complaint and Written Notice were sent to the relevant addresses disclosed by the Registrar the Panel considers that this satisfies the requirement in paragraph 2(a) of the UDRP Rules to “employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice”. Accordingly, the Panel considers it is able to proceed to determine this Complaint. While the Respondent’s failure to file a Response does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant, the Panel may thereby draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default (see, e.g., Verner Panton Design v. Fontana di Luce Corp, WIPO Case No. D2012-1909). Substantive Matters

To succeed, in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must satisfy the Panel 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 legiti