WIPO Domain Name Decision D2019-2216 for 1lifeco.com
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION 1Life Insurance Limited v. Makarem Sobhi Batterjee, Shababco Enterprise Case No. D2019-2216 1. The Parties
The Complainant is 1Life Insurance Limited, South Africa, represented by Moore Attorneys Incorporated, South Africa.
The Respondent is Makarem Sobhi Batterjee, Shababco Enterprise, Saudi Arabia. 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 September 12, 2019. On September 13, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On September 13, 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 September 20, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 10, 2019. The Response was filed with the Center on October 9, 2019.
The Center appointed Tony Willoughby as the sole panelist in this matter on October 15, 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 South African insurance company, which was founded in 2005. It is the registered proprietor of several South African trade mark registrations protecting its name including Trade Mark Registration No. 2013/03645 1LIFE registered on April 29, 2016, (application filed February 12, 2013) in class 35 for a variety of advertising and consultancy services. It operates a website connected to its domain name, , which it registered on July 7, 2009.
The Domain Name was registered on September 6, 2016, and connected to a parking page of the Registrar featuring a number of “Related Links”, all relating to the insurance industry and many of them unrelated to the Complainant. Currently, those links have been removed from the parking page.
On August 21, 2019, the Complainant’s representatives sent an email to the Respondent drawing the Respondent’s attention to the Complainant’s trade mark rights and seeking inter alia transfer of the Domain Name. The Respondent did not reply. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s 1LIFE trade mark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith, primarily on the basis that it is being used to divert traffic for commercial gain via the advertising links on the parking page to which it is connected. B. Respondent
The Respondent disputes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s corporate name, but does not address the issue as to whether or not it is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s 1LIFE registered trade mark. The Respondent asserts that in registering the Domain Name it did everything required of it by the Registrar and that if there is anything objectionable about the Domain Name registration, the Registrar should have alerted it and not proceeded with the registration.
The Respondent states that it did not reply to the Complainant’s representative’s email simply because the email was addressed to an unmanned email address, the person in question having left the Respondent’s employ some time earlier. 6. Discussion and Findings A. General
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:
(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights: and
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name: and
(iii) The Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name comprises the Complainant’s trade mark 1LIFE, the letters “co” and the “.com” generic Top Level Domain identifier.
The Complainant’s trade mark being readily recognizable in the Domain Name, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has made no attempt to justify its selection and use of the Domain Name. It simply states that if the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trade mark of a third party, the Registrar should not have allowed the registration to go through.
Given that (a) the “Related Links” on the parking page to which the Domain Name is connected all relate to the business area of the Complainant; and that (b) there is nothing before the Panel to indicate that the Respondent has any connection with the insurance industry; and that (c) the Respondent’s name does not bear any relation to the Domain Name, the Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
On the unchallenged evidence of the Complainant and in the absence of any explanation from the Respondent as to why it registered the Domain Name and then used it to connect to a parking page with pay-per-click links to businesses competing with the Complainant, the Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that the Domain Name was registered with the Complainant’s trade mark in mind and with a view to deriving commercial gain on the back of the trade mark value of the Domain Name.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraphs 4(a)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) of the Policy 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
Tony Willoughby
Sole Panelist
Date: October 24, 2019

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy