WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION MIH PayU B.V. v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Payu Crypto Case No. D2018-1227 1. The Parties

Complainant is MIH PayU B.V. of Hoofddorp, Netherlands, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.

Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale Arizona / Payu Crypto of Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

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

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 1, 2018. On June 1, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On June 4, 2018, 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, and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on June 6, 2018 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. On June 7, 2018, Complainant filed an amended Complaint.

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 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. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on July 6, 2018. An email was received on July 7, 2018, from Respondent requesting a 10-15 day extension to due date of response. The Center declined to extend the period for Response under paragraph 5(e) of the Rules. The Center further informed Respondent that if it chose to file a late Response the Center would bring it to the Panel’s attention (when appointed), and it will be at the discretion of the Panel to consider it.

The Center appointed Roberto Bianchi as the sole panelist in this matter on July 13, 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

Complainant is a leading provider of online payment services.

Complainant owns the following trademark registrations:

TRADEMARK

JURISDICTION

REG. NUMBER

REG. DATE

FILING / PRIORITY DATE

INTNTL.CLASS

PayU PayU

India

2832695

October 27, 2014

PAYU

European Union

010521128

September 15, 2012

December 22, 2011

9, 36, 42, 45

payu

European Union

010805885

September 27, 2012

April 13, 2012

9, 36, 42, 45

PayU

United States

5158732

March 14, 2017

March 16, 2015

9, 36, 42

payu

WIPO

1140870

October 10, 2012

April 13, 2012

9, 36, 42, 45

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on July 8, 2017 and resolves to a website with competing goods and services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

Complainant contends as follows:

The Disputed Domain Name captures Complainant’s PAYU trademark in its entirety, simply adding the descriptive term “crypto” to the end of the trademark. This addition does not negate the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and Complainant’s trademark. It is well established that the addition of other terms to recognizable trademarks is not sufficient to overcome a finding of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).

The granting of registrations by the IPI, EUIPO and USPTO for the PAYU trademarks is prima facie evidence of the validity of the term “PAYU” as trademarks, of Complainant’s ownership of these trademarks, and of its exclusive right to use the PAYU trademarks in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services specified on each registration. Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or permitted Respondent to register domain names incorporating Complainant’s trademark. Further, the pertinent WhoIs information identifies the Registrant Name as “Payu Crypto”. Even so, there is no evidence that Respondent has ever been commonly known by the relevant moniker “Payu Crypto”, apart from the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant has not found that Respondent has any registered trademark corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant also conducted a search at “”, and results show that “Payu Crypto” is not an incorporated business in India, the country where Respondent resides.

Respondent is making neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. On the website available at the Disputed Domain Name, Respondent offers an online platform for buying, selling, transferring, and storing digital currency, i.e., services, which directly compete with Complainant’s own offerings. See Annex 3 to the Complaint. Here, past UDRP panels have consistently held that selling competing goods, coupled with the unauthorized use of a complainant’s trademarks in a confusingly similar domain name, does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy, paragraph 4(c)(iii).

Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on July 8, 2017, which is after Complainant filed and registered its PAYU trademarks. See Annex 1 to the Complaint for Complainant’s trademark registrations. In addition, Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name significantly after the registration of its Complainant’s domain name on July 3, 2002.

The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Complainant and its PAYU trademarks are internationally known, with trademark registrations across numerous countries. Complainant has marketed and sold its goods and services using this trademark since 2007, which is well before Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name on July 8, 2017. At the time of registration of the Disputed Domain Name, Respondent knew or should have known of the existence of the Complainant’s trademarks and that registration of domain names containing widely-known trademarks constitutes bad faith per se. In addition, Complainant ha