WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Domain Admin, Furrer Firstnet Case No. D2018-2254 1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Domain Admin, Furrer Firstnet of Brig, Switzerland. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with 1API GmbH (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 5, 2018. On October 5, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On October 8, 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 October 12, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 1, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 2, 2018.

The Center appointed Willem J. H. Leppink as the sole panelist in this matter on November 7, 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 following facts are undisputed.

The Complainant is an online chat website that pairs random people from around the world together for
real-time, webcam-based conversations. The website of the Complainant is frequently visited. In the period November 2017 – January 2018 the website of the Complainant averaged over 4.5 million monthly visitors.

The Complainant is the owner of a number of registrations for the trademark CHATROULETTE in various jurisdictions, including but not limited to the United States of America trademark (word mark) registration number 4445843, filed on January 10, 2011, registered on December 10, 2013 for services in inter alia classes 38 and 45 and various European Union Trade Marks (word marks) such as the word mark with registration number 008944076, applied for on March 10, 2010, and registered on December 4, 2012 for services in classes 35, 38 and 42 (hereinafter referred to as the “Trademark”).

Over the years, the popularity of the website of the Complainant has been boosted by various appearances in news and media, including The New York Times, The New Yorker, and New York magazine, as well as on television shows including Good Morning America and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

The Domain Name was registered by the Respondent on February 6, 2014. The Domain Name resolves to a website that includes various pay-per-click links (the “Website”). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

Insofar as relevant, the Complainant contends the following.

The Domain Name reproduces the Trademark in its entirety.

The Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant in any way. The Complainant has not given the Respondent permission to use the Trademark in any manner, including in domain names. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, which evinces a lack of rights or legitimate interests. Furthermore, the Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or permitted the Respondent to register domain names incorporating the Trademark.

The Respondent is using the Domain Name to redirect Internet users to a website featuring links to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with the Complainant’s business. For instance, the Website features multiple third-party links for “Webcam Chat”, “Live Chat Rooms” and “Video Chat Rooms”. Further, the Website features a link that directly references the Complainant and its business. Presumably, the Respondent receives pay-per-click fees from the linked websites that are listed at the Website. As such, the Respondent is not using the Domain Name to provide a bona fide offering of goods or serv