WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION MiWay Insurance Limited v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Jatinder Sahi Case No. D2019-1987 1. The Parties

The Complainant is MiWay Insurance Limited, South Africa, represented by Moore Attorneys Incorporated, South Africa.

The Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States of America (“United States”) / Jatinder Sahi, United Kingdom, self-represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name (the “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 August 14, 2019. On August 14, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August 15, 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 August 16, 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 August 20, 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”), which applies to “.online” as to other “new” generic Top-Level Domain names (“gTLDs”), 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 August 23, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 12, 2019. The Response was filed with the Center on September 11, 2019. The Respondent also sent an email on August 21, 2019.

The Center appointed W. Scott Blackmer as the sole panelist in this matter on September 24, 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 licensed insurer and financial services provider organized as a South African public company and headquartered in Kosmosdal, near Centurion, South Africa. Controlled by the publicly listed Sanlam financial services group, the Complainant was launched in 2008 as the first South African direct insurance company to sell short-term insurance policies online (motor, household, homeowners, business, and liability cover products), at “” (the “Complainant’s website”). The Complainant subsequently registered additional domain names incorporating the name “MiWay”: , , , and .

The Complainant holds several registered South African trademarks for MIWAY as a standard character trademark, including Registration Numbers 27309 and 27310 (both registered November 2, 2010). The Complainant states that its business is largely conducted online and that its mark is advertised extensively on radio, television, and various social media platforms, so that it is “known to a substantial number of people in South Africa”.

According to the Registrar, the Domain Name was created on June 2, 2018 and registered in the name of the Respondent domain privacy service, which has expressed no interest in the Domain Name in this proceeding. After receiving notice of this dispute, the Registrar identified the registrant as the individual Jatinder Sahi of Brighton, United Kingdom, with no listed organization, who is referred to hereafter as the “Respondent”.

The Domain Name evidently has not been used to date for a website developed by the Respondent or for email accounts. Instead, it resolves to a parking page hosted by the Registrar, headed by the Registrar’s logo and the statement that this web page “is parked for FREE” courtesy of the Registrar. The page does not include pay-per-click (“PPC”) advertising. The parking page displays a link for the owner of the Domain Name to click if the owner would like to turn the Domain Name into a website (an automated service provided by the Registrar), and another link for other site visitors to click if they are interested in buying the Domain Name (the link takes the user to a page where the Registrar essentially proposes to communicate offers and broker a purchase). There are two other links on the page advertising the Registrar’s domain name offerings. In short, the “free parking” page promotes only the Registrar’s services.

The Complainant became aware of the Domain Name and had its counsel send an email with a cease-and-desist demand and request for transfer of the Domain Name to the “Registrant”, care of the Registrar, on May 13, 2019. The Respondent says the Registrar did not forward this email to him. This proceeding followed. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is “an exact replication” of its MIWAY trademark. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no permission or other legitimate interest in the Domain Name and has not used it in connection with any bona fide commercial offering. Rather, “[t]he Respondent’s domain name remains largely inactive and there can thus be no doubt that the domain name was registered merely to interfere with the business of the Complainant and to confuse members of the public into believing that the domain name belongs to the Complainant, when it does not”.

The Complainant concludes that the Respondent registered the Domain Name in bad faith, “in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name”, “to interfere with the business of the Complainant”, and to misdirect Internet users “for commercial gain”. B. Respondent

The Respondent, who is not represented by coun