WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Geek Group Pty Ltd v. SG Corporate Services Pty Ltd Case No. DAU2019-0009 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Geek Group Pty Ltd of Fitzgibbon, Australia, represented by Alder IP – Patent Attorneys and Solicitors, Australia.

The Respondent is SG Corporate Services Pty Ltd of Brisbane, Australia, represented by Mills Oakley, Australia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Web Address Registration Pty Ltd (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 27, 2019. On March 28, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On March 29, 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 .au Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for .au Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .au Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 1, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 21, 2019. After the Respondent’s request for extension, the due date for Response was updated to April 25, 2019. The Response was filed with the Center on April 18, 2019.

The Center appointed John Swinson 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 is Geek Group Pty Ltd, an Australian registered company providing computer repair services on the Internet. The Complainant owns Australian registered trade mark number 1017762 for the following device mark, registered on August 27, 2004, as well as Australian registered trade mark number 1313346 for SUPERGEEK, registered on August 5, 2009:

(the “Trade Mark”). The Complainant acquired the Trade Mark from Davey SG Pty Ltd (in liquidation) on March 6, 2019.

The Respondent is SG Corporate Solutions Pty Ltd, a company which provides IT and other corporate and administrative support services to customers.

According to the Response, and as confirmed by the Registrar, the Disputed Domain Name was registered in November 2003. The Disputed Domain Name currently redirects Internet users to the website at , which is a business operated by a company under common control with that of the Respondent. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant makes the following submissions.

Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Trade Mark. The Complainant purchased the Trade Mark from Davey SG Pty Ltd on March 6, 2019.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. The Disputed Domain Name redirects Internet users to a website at . This domain name is registered to a company which is controlled by the same individuals as those who control the Respondent.

The Disputed Domain Name has been owned by various entities since it was registered, all of which were or are under common control. One such entity is currently in liquidation. The Trade Mark has also been owned by one or more of these entities until purchased by the Complainant on March 6, 2019.

Registered or Used in Bad Faith

In March 2019, the Complainant and Supergeek Pty Ltd, a company under common control with the Respondent, exchanged correspondence regarding Supergeek Pty Ltd’s continued use of the Trade Mark following purchase of the Trade Mark by the Complainant. As a result of this correspondence, Supergeek Pty Ltd rebranded its business and redirected the Disputed Domain Name to a website at . However, it continued to use the Trade Mark in a number of ways.

The Respondent continues to use the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The Respondent is redirecting the Disputed Domain Name to for commercial gain for the Respondent’s new business which operates via that website.

The Respondent does not own the Trade Mark and has no right to use the Disputed Domain Name. By redirecting Internet users to , the Respondent is misleading consumers into believing that the Disputed Domain Name is related to the Respondent’s business. B. Respondent

Factual background

Mr. Michael Davey and his business partner have operated a business trading as “Super Geek” at all times since approximately December 16, 2003. The Disputed Domain Name was registered by an individual associated with the Super Geek business in or around November 2003. The business’s initial operating entity, S Pty Ltd, owned the Trade Mark.

In 2014, S Pty Ltd assigned the Super Geek business, along with the Trade Mark and the Disputed Domain Name, to Davey SG Pty Ltd. The Respondent was incorporated in 2015 to provide corporate and administrative support to customers of the Super Geek business. The Respondent has traded under the Australian registered business name “Supergeek Corporate Solutions” since May 14, 2016.

Davey SG Pty Ltd went into liquidation in 2015. As a result of this, in March 2016, the Super Geek business and the Disputed Domain Name (but not the Trade Mark) were assigned to the Respondent. At that time, the Respondent began operating the Super Geek business (as opposed to providing support services for the Super Geek business). In November 2018, the Respondent appointed Supergeek Pty Ltd to operate the Super Geek business. The Respondent continued to operate the website at the Disputed Domain Name and provide services to the Super Geek business.

Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Respondent concedes that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Trade Mark.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Super Geek business has been continually promoted via the website at the Disputed Domain Name since November 2003, despite changes in ownership of the Disputed Domain Name and the business during that time. Entities associated with the Respondent have had rights to and legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name since 2003. The Respondent has had rights to and legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name since May 2015.

Despite protest by the Respondent, the liquidator of Davey SG Pty Ltd assigned the Trade Mark and a telephone number used by the Super Geek business to the Complainant in early 2019. Neither the Super Geek business nor any other assets used by the business were assigned to the Complainant. The Complainant has since set up business in competition with the Super Geek business, which at the relevant time was still operated by Supergeek Pty Ltd. The Complainant was aware of this.

To alleviate consumer confusion due to the Complainant’s use of the Trade Mark, in March 2019, the Respondent rebranded the Super Geek business to “Super I.T. Solutions”. However, the Respondent has not changed its registered business name (“Supergeek Corporate Solutions”), the business name of Supergeek Pty Ltd (“Super Geek”), or the corporate names of either the Respondent or Supergeek Pty Ltd.

The Respondent continues to operate the website of the Super Geek business which is accessible via the Disputed Domain Name. Internet users entering the Disputed Domain Name into a browser are directed to the website of the rebranded Super Geek business. The Respondent also continues to use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with email addresses and various other accounts and services used by the Super Geek business.

Since its inception in 2003, the Super Geek business has generated significant goodwill and reputation. Customers of the business have always been able to access the website of the business via the Disputed Domain Name, which remains the corporate name and business name of the oper