WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Nakheel PJSC v. Aqeel Ahmed Case No. D2019-0585 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Nakheel PJSC of Dubai, United Arab Emirates (“UAE”), represented by Gowling WLG (UK) LLP, UAE.

The Respondent is Aqeel Ahmed of Scarborough, Canada, 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 March 17, 2019. On March 18, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 19, 2019, 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 March 27, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 16, 2019. The Center received two email communications from the Respondent on March 30, 2019 and April 17, 2019. On April 17, 2019, the Center notified the Parties it will proceed to panel appointment. On May 2, 2019, the Center received a further email communication from the Respondent.

The Center appointed Andrew D. S. Lothian as the sole panelist in this matter on May 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 company registered under the laws of the UAE. It is one of the world’s leading property developers and sells, leases and manages residential, commercial, retail and leisure projects in Dubai, UAE. The Complainant also develops and leases hospitality, leisure and entertainment projects, and develops and operates shopping malls. The Complainant’s current and future retail project portfolio covers nearly 17 million square feet of leasable space.

The Complainant has a current retail project named “Deira Mall” set in Dubai’s oldest cultural district with 4.5 million square feet of leasable space, which it says will be the biggest and most scenic retail, lifestyle and entertainment destination in said district. It will feature department stores, luxury and fashion retail spaces, a hypermarket, cinema, cafés and restaurants, 12,500 parking spaces and a 15,000 square feet entertainment zone. In support of this development, the Complainant has registered a variety of trademarks for the device and word mark DEIRA MALL, including UAE registered trademark no. 293209, registered on January 17, 2019 in international class 35. The Complainant produces extensive press material indicating that it revealed its plans for the “Deira Mall” project in June 2014. Press reports refer to the proposed shopping mall as “Deira Mall” and the “Deira Islands Mall” after its location on “Deira Islands”, a project of four linked islands of resorts, apartments and shops.

The disputed domain name was created on January 20, 2016. A screenshot of the website associated with the disputed domain name dated March 6, 2019 shows a single page site under the heading “Domain Name Is For Sale”, listing the disputed domain name along with a price of GBP 75,000,000 plus 13% Canadian HST and giving the Respondent’s contact details.

On May 28, 2018, the Complainant received an email from the Respondent addressed to the Complainant’s CEO. This email indicated that it related to the disputed domain name and four others, each of which appeared to relate to one of the Complainant’s construction projects and stated:

“My name is Aqeel Ahmed from Toronto, Canada, as we all know that Nakheel is doing construction on these three Malls and definitely, you gonna, need the Domain names for them I am the owner of these three malls domain I wanna know if you are interested in purchasing of these domains.

We are taking offers from the owner of these malls.

Our asking price for each domain name is USD$49,000,000 (FORTY-NINE MILLION DOLLARS) USA$.”

In an email to the Complainant’s representative dated August 3, 2018, the Respondent proposed a 50% discount on each of the five domain names about which he had originally emailed the Complainant, such that he would sell these to the Complainant for the sum of USD 125,000,000. The Respondent proposed that the Parties enter into a settlement agreement “in simple English no more than 50 words”. The Respondent added that if the Complainant did not agree to this proposal it would be tied up for many years in court, while its malls would not have the related domain names and corresponding websites.

Two of the other domain names featuring in the Respondent’s email of May 28, 2018 have already been the subject of disputes under the applicable domain name dispute resolution policy, namely, Nakheel PJSC v. Shabina Ghani Aqeel,WIPO Case No. DAE2018-0006 relating to the domain name , registered in the name of the Respondent’s wife, and Nakheel (PJSC) v. Aqueel Ahmed,WIPO Case No. D2018-1620 relating to the domain name . The panel in each case ordered the transfer of the domain name concerned to the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Complainant describes its “Deira Mall” retail project and provides details of its relative registered trademarks. The Complainant claims unregistered trademark rights in the DEIRA MALL mark through use which has resulted in the mark being associated with it, under reference to the press coverage of the project launch. The Complainant notes that while its trademark registrations contain a disclaimer with regard to the name “Deira” on its own, the totality of the Complainant’s DEIRA MALL designation is incorporated in and constitutes the disputed domain name.

The Complainant denies any direct connection with the Respondent and asserts that there is no license, consent or other right by which the Respondent would have been entitled to register or use the disputed domain name. The Complainant notes that it has not found any evidence that the Respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name at the point of registration and adds that a “Google” search does not reveal any legitimate interests vesting in the Respondent. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s unregistered trademark rights in the DEIRA MALL mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name because it was well-known in relation to the Complainant’s mall development both in the Middle East and within the real estate industry, adding that the Respondent himself acknowledges that he was aware of the Complainant’s operations in his email of May 28, 2018. The Complainant contends that the Respondent would not have registered and used the disputed domain name if he had not known of the Complainant’s mark.

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent’s only use of the disputed domain name has been to attempt to sell it for a very substantial amount. The Complainant notes the terms of the correspondence between the Parties which it says indicates that the Respondent intended to sell the disputed domain name in violation of the Complainant’s rights for a sum exceeding the Respondent’s out of pocket costs directly related to the registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that the Respondent’s main activity is to trade domain names reproducing third parties’ trademarks and refers to the decisions already issued concerning the Respondent as noted in the factual background section above.

The Complainant notes that the Respondent acknowledges in his email to the Complainant that its DEIRA MALL development is well-known with reference to the Respondent’s phrase “[…] as we all know […]” and the mention of “these three Malls” which the Complainant notes refer to its “Deira Mall”, “Al Khail Avenue Mall” and “Nad al Sheba Mall”. The Complainant states that it is obvious that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s operations when he registered the disputed domain name, adding that this took place after the Complainant’s proposed development became public knowledge. The Complainant concludes that the disputed domain name is an opportunistic registration made and used in bad faith. B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. However, while the Respondent did not file a formal Response, he made a number of observations in an email to the Center dated March 30, 2019. The subject line of this email references the present case and the disputed domain name along with one other domain name. The body of the email lists a variety of different domain names but likewise makes reference to the present disputed domain name. The intent of the Respondent appears to be that the email should be treated as a response to a variety of complaints filed by the Complainant against the Respondent or his wife. The email was received in advance of the due date for Response in the present case.

In all of the above circumstances, the Panel accepts the said email of March 30, 2019 as a response to the present Complaint, albeit that the Panel is conscious that such email does not feature the certificate of truth and accuracy required by paragraph 5(c)(viii) of the Rules and must therefore be treated with great caution. The Panel notes in passing that the observations in the email were not particularly intelligible. Nevertheless, the Panel has done its best to decipher the Respondent’s contentions relative to the present Complaint from the content.

The Respondent indicates that his email relates to the present disputed domain name and several others which are not the subject of these proceedings. The Respondent states that he accepts the decisions in Nakheel PJSC v. Shabina Ghani Aqeel, supra and Nakheel (PJSC) v. Aqueel Ahmed, supra and adds that he wishes to offer the Complainant two other domain names “for free” although he insists that he has a valid case for retention of the disputed domain name and one other. The Respon