WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Brookfield Office Properties Inc. v. Syed Hussain, Domain Management MIC Case No. D2018-2659 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Brookfield Office Properties Inc. of Toronto, Canada, represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Syed Hussain, Domain Management MIC of Closter, New Jersey, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

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 November 20, 2018. On November 21, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 27, 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 December 3, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 24, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 24, 2018.

The Center appointed Alistair Payne as the sole panelist in this matter on January 2, 2019. 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 a real estate operating company, specialising in real estate investment strategies. The Complainant is part of Brookfield Asset Management, an alternative assets management company initially founded in 1899 and now a public company whose revenue in 2017 exceeded USD 40 billion and with approximately USD 330 billion worth of assets under its management. It is staffed by over 750 investment professionals and 80,000 operating employees spread over 100 offices and in 30 countries. The Complainant is a subsidiary of Brookfield Asset Management and focuses on the real estate division of the company.

The Complainant owns various trade mark registrations worldwide for BROOKFIELD, including, in particular, United States trade mark registration 2472583, with serial number 74712476. The Complainant has operated its main website at the domain name since November 1, 1998. It also owns numerous other domain names that incorporate its BROOKFIELD mark, including domain names such as , and .

The disputed domain name was registered on April 24, 2018 by the Respondent who is a domain name broker and owns a substantial domain name portfolio. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant submits that it owns registered trade mark rights in its BROOKFIELD mark and that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s BROOKFIELD mark as it incorporates it in its entirety without any distinguisher. It says that while previous panels have tended to disregard the top-level suffix, in this case the term “ventures” as a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) reinforces the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s “BROOKFIELD” trade mark.

To the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent has not registered any trade mark for the term “Brookfield” or “Brookfield Ventures” and, therefore, says the Complainant, the Respondent does not hold rights to the disputed domain name. The Complainant also submits that the Respondent has never been commonly known by the disputed domain name and has not acquired common law rights as a result of use.

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name currently resolves to a platform on which it is advertised for sale and prior to this used to redirect to various web pages and advertisements from which the Respondent most likely derived income. The Complainant suggests that the fact that the disputed domain name is advertised on various sites as being for sale is indicative that the Respondent is not intending to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, as its primary intention is to sell the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s trade mark value in mind.

There is no evidence, according to the Complainant, that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Indeed, the Respondent, before notice of the dispute, redirected the disputed domain name to diverse websites that advertised the disputed domain name for sale. The Complainant says that the Respondent is a well-known cybersquatter who is known for registering third-party owned trade marks as domain names with the main intention of reselling them for profit.

The fact that the disputed domain name is advertised on popular domain name aftermarket websites, and now on the webpage of the disputed domain name itself, says the Complainant, only serves to further reinforce the assumption that the Respondent is trying to gain commercially from the disputed domain name by selling it back to the highest bidder. As a consequence of all of these circumstances the Complainant says that it has presented a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant asserts that the BROOKFIELD trade mark has been active for over 17 years and predates the registration of