WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Ver Se Innovation Private Limited v. Mahendra Kumar Singh Case No. D2019-0790 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Ver Se Innovation Private Limited of Bangalore, India, represented by BananaIP Counsels, India.

The Respondent is Mahendra Kumar Singh of Lucknow, India. 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 April 8, 2019. On April 8, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 9, 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. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint on April 15, 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 23, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 13, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 14, 2019.

The Center appointed Harini Narayanswamy as the sole panelist in this matter on May 23, 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 in the business of online news and content aggregation. Its website “” and its mobile application “Newshunt” provide publishers and authors a platform to publish news and other content. The Complainant owns the trademarks NEWSHUNT and DAILYHUNT and has provided evidence of its trademark registrations and pending applications under different classes and various jurisdictions. Some of the Complainant’s registered marks in India, are: NEWSHUNT bearing number 1907414 under class 38 dated August 1, 2010 and is valid till August 1, 2020 (held by its wholly owned subsidiary Eterno Infotech Pvt. Ltd), and DAILYHUNT bearing number 3018703, under class 35 dated July 27, 2015, and valid until July 27, 2025.

The registration record reveals that the Respondent is located in the city of Lucknow. The Respondent Mahendra Kumar Singh registered the disputed domain name on October 15, 2015. The Respondent has previously used the disputed domain name to display news and other content. Presently, the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. There is just a message which states “SUSPENDED, This Website has been Suspended. Please contact Technical Support Department”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant states that it has adopted and used its NEWSHUNT trademark since 2009 and the mark is a unique coined combination of two unrelated words “News” and “Hunt”. The Complainant claims that it is among the first to broadcast content in different regional languages and is presently a dominant player that is followed and reported by big media entities like Forbes, The New York Times, and The Times of India.

The Complainant states that it had rebranded its business in August 2015 and adopted the trademark DAILYHUNT but continues to use the NEWSHUNT mark. The Complainant adds that its trademark DAILYHUNT is also a coined mark using two unrelated words “Daily” and “Hunt”. The DAILYHUNT mark is registered under classes 35, 38, 41, and 42, with a pending application under class 9 which has been accepted. The Complainant alleges that after the rebranding, its popularity increased and its activities are frequently reported in the media under different languages.

The Complainant argues that it has common law rights in the marks and has provided evidence of several news articles to show third party recognition of its marks, advertisements and marketing promotion of its marks and various awards that it has received. Referring to its large social media following, the Complainant states that its YOUTUBE, FACEBOOK, LINKEDIN, and TWITTER pages distribute news under its two trademarks. Its mobile application is very popular with about one hundred million downloads and its users allegedly spend 8 billion minutes every month on its mobile application. More than 1,400 publishers including leading news houses like Bloomberg, DNA, Outlook and others publish content in 14 different languages on its platform, states the Complainant, which consequently attracts well-known advertisement agencies.

The Complainant states it had sent cease and desist notices to the Respondent and has not received any reply from the Respondent. The Complainant has filed the present Complaint requesting for transfer of the disputed domain name on the grounds that: (i) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks NEWSHUNT and DAILYHUNT in which the Complainant has statutory and common law rights. (ii) The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which according to the Complainant was registered to benefit from the name and fame associated with its marks. (iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings

The Policy under paragraph 4(a) states the Complainant is required to establish three elements to o