WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION British Columbia Institute of Technology v. Whois Agent, Domain Protection Services, Inc. / Domain Vault, Domain Vault LLC Case No. D2018-2336 1. The Parties

The Complainant is British Columbia Institute of Technology of Burnaby, Canada, represented by DLA Piper (Canada) LLP, Canada.

The Respondent is Whois Agent, Domain Protection Services, Inc. of Denver, Colorado, United States of America (“Unites States”) / Domain Vault, Domain Vault LLC of Dallas, Texas, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

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

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 12, 2018. On October 15, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On October 15, 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 the Complainant on October 19, 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 October 20, 2018.

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 23, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 12, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 13, 2018.

The Center appointed John Swinson as the sole panelist in this matter on November 26, 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 British Columbia Institute of Technology, a polytechnic educational institution in British Columbia, Canada. According to the Complaint, the Complainant was established in 1964, and has been providing post-secondary educational services under the BCIT trade mark for more than 50 years. The Complainant is one of the largest post-secondary educational institutions in British Columbia. The Complainant has five campuses and more than 50,000 enrolled students from over 100 countries, including the United States of America (“United States”).

The Complainant owns a number of registered trade marks for BCIT (both word marks and stylized), the earliest of which is Canadian official mark number 909,271, registered March 12, 1997, also including Canadian trade mark number TMA540,077, registered January 23, 2001, and claiming a first use in Canada since 1964 (the “Trade Mark”).

The Respondent is Domain Vault, Domain Vault, LLC. The Respondent did not file a Response, and consequently little information is known about the Respondent.

The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on November 27, 2002. The website at the Disputed Domain Name features pay-per-click (“PPC”) links relating to educational courses and trade schools. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant makes the following submissions: Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant owns registered trade marks and official marks for BCIT. The Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Trade Mark. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent cannot demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name for the following reasons:

- The Trade Mark is not a generic term or dictionary word.

- The Respondent is not commonly known by “BCIT”. The Respondent’s name has no correlation to the Disputed Domain Name. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a PPC link website which contains links to educational institutions. These educational institutions directly compete with the Complainant.

- The Respondent has not made preparations to use, and is not using, the Disputed Domain Name in connection with any good faith offering of goods or services.

- The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial use of the Disputed Domain Name. Instead, the Respondent is making a commercial use of the Disputed Domain Name by hosting a website with PPC links to the Complainant’s competito