WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION FxPro Financial Services Ltd v. FxProLondon Case No. D2018-1603 1. The Parties

The Complainant is FxPro Financial Services Ltd of Ypsonas, Cyprus, represented by Venner Shipley LLP, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("UK").

The Respondent is FxProLondon of London, UK, self‑represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The 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 July 16, 2018. On July 16, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 16, 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.

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, and the proceedings commenced on July 23, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 12, 2018. The Center received six informal email communications from the Respondent on August 5 and 6, 2018. The Center informed the Parties of the commencement of Panel appointment process on August 13, 2018.

The Center appointed Alistair Payne as the sole panelist in this matter on August 23, 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 is an international exchange and financial services provider based in Cyprus that began trading under the FxPro name or mark in 2007 and now serves clients in 150 countries through its website at the domain name which was registered in 2002 and is available in 20 languages. The Complainant's sister company FXPRO UK Limited's domain name was registered in May 2008 and its business there and through the website at that domain name has operated since 2010. The Complainant owns numerous trade mark registrations worldwide for FXPRO and in particular European Union trade mark 006460349.

The disputed domain name was registered on December 1, 2017, and resolves to a website also offering international exchange and financial services. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name wholly incorporates its FXPRO trade mark and that the addition of the geographic name "London" does not distinguish the disputed domain name and therefore the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its FXPRO registered trade mark.

It says further that the Respondent has no registered rights in the FXPRO name or the FXPROLONDON name. It submits that the Complainant has not authorised, licensed or consented to the Respondent's use of its trade mark FXPRO into the disputed domain name.

The Complainant notes that its website at "www." received 8 million visits worldwide in 2014 and that in 2015 it received over 10.5 million visits. It says that its business has won more than 50 awards and accolades and that it has spent significant amounts of money in promotional activity of the FXPRO name and brand, including by sponsoring numerous international sporting tournaments and clubs. The Complainant submits that as a result of these activities it has developed a very significant goodwill and reputation attaching to its name and mark, in particular in the UK.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent in using the disputed domain name and the website to which it resolves is trading on the goodwill and reputation attaching to the Complainant's FXPRO name and mark. It says that the disputed domain name was registered long after it first used its mark and by its time of registration that the Complainant's mark was already very well reputed in the UK and elsewhere.

The Complainant notes that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves mimics the Complainant's website using very similar get-up and a significant amount of copied content. It says that the Respondent's we