Decisión del Panel Administrativo nº DCO2019-0033 of WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, November 13, 2019 (case Rubis Energie v. Privacy Administrator, Anonymize, Inc.)
| Resolution Date | November 13, 2019 |
| Issuing Organization | WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center |
| Decision | Transfer |
| Dominio | Colombia (.co) |
1.1 The Complainant is Rubis Energie, France, represented by IP Twins S.A.S., France.
1.2 The Respondent is Privacy Administrator, Anonymize, Inc., United States of America.
2.1 The disputed domain name [vitogaz.co] (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Epik, Inc. (the “Registrar”).
3.1 The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 30, 2019. At that time, the publically available WhoIs details for the Domain Name identified the registrant of the Domain Name to be “Anonymize, Inc”. “Anonymize, Inc” is the privacy service of the Registrar.
3.2 On August 30, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. The Registrar did not immediately respond to that request, but on September 8, 2019 the Registrar appeared to send an email to the Complainant’s lawyers, that stated as follows:
“Hello, Shall we settle this one for $500 today?
Regards,
Rob”
3.3 That offer was rejected by the Complainant’s lawyers and a further email appears to have been sent from the Registrar to the Complainant’s lawyers on September 9, 2019. That email stated as follows:
“Hello [Name of the Complainant’s lawyer], The ICANN fee of $1500 is refunded before the panel is appointed. So either: 1. He is stupid. OR 2. You like to generate legal fees. For $500, the domain is delivered today. Is there some other price needed? Regards, Rob”
3.4 By September 11, 2019, the Registrar had still not responded to the Center’s verification request and that day the Center sent an email to the Registrar (including to “Rob” at the Registrar) asking for the relevant information once again. In that email, the Center stated:
“Please note that it may become necessary to inform ICANN Compliance should we fail to receive a timely response from you in this regard.”
3.5 Still no response had been received from the Registrar by September 23, 2019. As a consequence, the Center sent a further email to the Registrar stating that unless the information requested was provided by September 25, 2019, the proceedings might need to proceed without the relevant information.
3.6 This email from the Center elicited an email response the same day from Robert Monster, who described himself as the “Founder and CEO” of the Registrar. In that email, he stated:
“The registrant abandoned the domain. It is no-contest. Can we have a fast-track solution? Nobody besides lawyers on the meter have time for this nonsense.”
3.7 On September 24, 2019, a further email was received by the Provider from someone identifying themselves as the “Director, Client Services” of the Registrar. In that email, that person stated as follows:
“Per your request, the [Domain Name] currently has a Registrar Lock enabled on it.
Here is the WhoIs information for Registrant, Admin, Tech, and Billing:
Organization Name: Anonymize, Inc.
Name: Privacy Administrator Email: info@anonymize.com
Address: 704 228th Ave NE,
City: Sammamish
State: WA
Zip Code: 98074 Country:
United States Phone: +1.4253668810”
3.8 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 October 4, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 24, 2019. The Center notified the Parties that it would proceed to panel appointment on October 30, 2019.
3.9 The Center appointed Matthew S. Harris as the sole panelist in this matter on November 5, 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.
3.10 On November 7, 2019 and having read the case file, the Panel issued a Procedural Order (Procedural Order No.1). In Procedural Order No.1, the Panel explained that certain conduct of the Registrar might be criticised in the published decision in this case and that the Panel might call for the Center to bring that conduct to the attention of the relevant authorities. Accordingly, Procedural Order No. 1 invited the Registrar to file a further submission in this respect by no later than November 13, 2019. It also requested that the Registrar disclose the details of the underlying registrant in this case.
3.11 In response to Procedural Order No. 1 the “Director of Business Development” at the Registrar filed a submission with the Center on November 11, 2019. In that submission the Registrar:
(i) Confirmed that Anonymize Inc. was the privacy service of the Registrar.
(ii) Confirmed that “Rob” who had sent the emails from the Registrar of August 30, 2019, and September 9, 2019 identified above, was Robert Monster, the “founder” of the Registrar.
(iii) Explained that the delay in providing a response to the Center’s initial verification request was due to the Registrar “receiv[ing] thousands of emails every day and the complaint was sent during the vacation period of some of our Staff, which created a delay in ticket responses”. It apologised for its non-compliance in this respect.
(iv) Did not disclose, as had been expressly requested in Procedural Order No.1, the details of the underlying registrant of the Domain Name, contending that the registrant “have the right not to show their contact information”.
(v) Repeated the contention, and appeared to consider it significant on the question of non-disclosure, that the underlying registrant was not contesting the transfer of the Domain Name.
(vi) Appeared to defend the registration of the Domain Name by contending that:
“the [Domain Name] has multiple options.
-
There is an energy company.
-
There is a musician: https://open.spotify.com/artist/4DNiGWScVzTFZVRj0rdja1
-
There are people named Vito Gaz: https://www.facebook.com/public/Vito-Gaz
-
There are also Mercedes Vito cars powered by Gaz which comes extensively when searching ‘Vito Gaz’.”
4.1 The Complainant, Rubis Energie, is part of the Rubis group of companies. Rubis is a France based international company specialising in the storage, distribution and sale of petroleum, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), food and chemical products. In addition to France, it undertakes activities in Bermuda, French Guiana, Jamaica, Madagascar, Morocco, Senegal, and Switzerland.
4.2 In 2018, the group generated revenues of more than EUR 4.7 billion and employed more than 3,500 people worldwide.
4.3 The Complainant is the owner of various registered trade marks around the world that incorporate or comprise the term “Vitogaz”, the earliest of which dates back to February 1995. These marks include:
(i) European Union registered trade mark no 002428431 for VITOGAZ as a word mark in class 4, filed on October 26, 2001 and proceeding to registration on December 4, 2002; and
(ii) International trade mark...
To continue reading
Request your trial