WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Facebook Inc. v. TheLord Above Case No. D2019-2038 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Facebook Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France.

The Respondent is TheLord Above, United States. 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 August 20, 2019. On August 20, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 21, 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 August 26, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 15, 2019. The Center received several email communications from the Respondent but did not receive a formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties that it was proceeding to the panel appointment stage.

The Center appointed William R. Towns as the sole panelist in this matter on October 3, 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 leading and well-known provider of online networking services. The Complainant adopted and has used the mark FACEBOOK as an indicator of source for its services since 2004, and owns multiple registrations for the FACEBOOK mark in the United States and other jurisdictions around the world, including the following:

− United States, Registration No. 3041791, registered on January 10, 2006 (first use in commerce in 2004),

− United States, Registration No. 3122052, registered on July 25, 2006 (first use in commerce in 2004),

− European Union, Registration No. 004535381, registered on June 22, 2011.

The Complainant also is the holder of numerous domain names reflecting its FACEBOOK mark.

The Complainant has experienced substantial growth since it began offering its online networking services under the FACEBOOK mark, growing from 1 million active users by the end of 2004 to 2.27 billion users as of September 2018. The Complainant’s website “” is consistently ranked among most visited website in the world, and UDRP panels have recognized the Complainant’s FACEBOOK mark one of the most famous online marks in the world. See Facebook, Inc. v. Franz Bauer,WIPO Case No. D2010-1247, Facebook, Inc. v. He Wenming,WIPO Case No. DCC2013-0004.

The disputed domain name was registered on July 27, 2017. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. Upon becoming aware of the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, the Complainant’s representative dispatched a cease and desist letter to the Respondent, to which the Complainant received no reply. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FACEBOOK mark. The Complainant observes that the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s FACEBOOK mark in its entirety, and asserts that the addition of the generic term “court” does not preclude a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy. The Complainant further notes that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), in this case “.com”, in generally disregarded when assessing the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s mark.

The Complainant maintains that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has never been licensed or otherwise authorized to use the Complainant’s FACEBOOK mark. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has neither used nor made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, and further submits that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant submits that its FACEBOOK mark is highly distinctive and famous around the world, and has been continuously and extensively used since 2004. The Complainant cites Facebook, Inc. v. He Wenming, supra (holding that “the Complainant and its FACEBOOK trademark enjoy a widespread reputation and high degree of recognition as a result of its fame and notoriety in the world for its online social networking services”). The Complainant contends that the Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of the Complainant’s rights in the FACEBOOK mark when registering the disputed domain name.

The Complainant maintains, given the Complainant’s renown worldwide, that it would be inconceivable for the Respondent to assert that the disputed domain name was registered for any legitimate purposes. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent provided false contact details when registering the disputed domain name, including the identity of the registrant (“TheLord Above”) and false or fictitious contact information, namely the postal address.

The Complainant reiterates that the Respondent has never actively used the disputed domain name, and submits that the Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name does preclude a finding of bad faith given the overall circumstances of the case, particularly in light of the distinctiveness and renown of the Complainant’s FACEBOOK mark. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent’s failure to reply to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter is indicative of the Respondent’s bad faith. B. Respondent

Despite having sent several email communication to the Center, the Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Scope of the Policy

The Policy is addressed to resolving disputes concerning allegations of abusive domain name registration and use. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v. Bay Verte Machinery, Inc. d/b/a The Power Tool Store,WIPO Case No. D2002-0774. Accordingly, the jurisdiction of this Panel is limited to providing a remedy in cases of the abusive registration of domain names, also known as “cybersquatting”. Weber-Stephen Products Co. v. Armitage Hardware,WIPO Case No. D2000-0187. See Final Report of the First WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, April 30, 1999, paragraphs 169-177. The term “cybersquatting” is most frequently used to describe the deliberate, bad faith abusive registration of a domain name in violation o