WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. On behalf of OWNER, c/o / Domain Admin, High Tech Investments LTD Case No. D2019-0649 1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is On behalf of OWNER, c/o of Alexandria, Virginia, United States of America (“United States”) / Domain Admin, High Tech Investments LTD of Providence, Seychelles. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

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

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 25, 2019. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 26, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 27, 2019, 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 March 29, 2019.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 April 1, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 21, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 24, 2019.

The Center appointed Wolter Wefers Bettink as the sole panelist in this matter on May 1, 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 since 2009 operates an online chat website under the name “Chatroulette” that pairs random people from around the world together for real-time, webcam-based conversations.

The website under the Complainant’s domain name grew to over 500,000 daily visitors in early 2010 and received 2.5 million visits in February 2019.

The Complainant is the owner of, inter alia, the following trade marks (the “Trade Marks”):

- German trade mark CHATROULETTE no. DE302010003706, registered on February 21, 2013,

- European Union trade mark CHATROULETTE no. 008944076, registered on December 4, 2012,

- Swiss trade mark CHATROULETTE no. 600401 registered, on March 14, 2010,

- United States trade mark CHATROULETTE no. 4445843, registered on December 10, 2013.

By email of November 19, 2018, the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent, with a reminder by email of November 26, 2018, to which no response was received.

The Domain Name was registered on July 6, 2011. The website to which the Domain Name resolves contains, inter alia, sponsored links labelled “Chatroulette”, “Chatroulette Kostenlos” (German for “free”), “Chat Video Chat”, and “Live Chat App”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

According to the Complainant, the Domain Name incorporates the Trade Marks in their entirety while adding the geographically descriptive term “de” (country abbreviation for Germany), thus rendering the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Trade Marks. The Complainant further submits that the addition of a geographical term to the Trade Marks does not sufficiently differentiate the Domain Name from the Trade Marks.

The Complainant states that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, which would demonstrate a lack of rights or legitimate interests. In addition, the Complainant contends, at the time of filing of the Complaint, the Respondent was using a privacy WhoIs service, which would equate to a lack of legitimate interests. Furthermore, the Complainant points out that the Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant in any way and that the Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or permitted the Respondent to register a domain name incorporating the Trade Marks.

According to the Complainant, historical screenshots of the website to which the Domain Name resolves show that since 2015, the Respondent has been using the Domain Name to redirect Internet users to a website featuring sponsored links to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with the Complainant’s business. The Complainant assumes that the Respondent receives pay-per-click revenue from the linked websites that are listed at the website. Such use of the Domain Name in the Complainant’s view does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Although the Domain Name was registered on July 6,