D 1. On July 25,the Center transmitted by to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name.
On July 26,the Registrar transmitted by to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 2, In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 22, The Respondent did not submit any response.
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 cgatroulette compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
Factual Background The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations across various jurisdictions. Chatroulette is cbatroulette online chat website that pairs random people from around the world together for real time, webcam-based conversation. It also provides online video chat services and online social introduction and networking services.
Chatroulette Complainant created the Chatroulette service and website in when he was 17 years old, high school student in Moscow, Russian Federation. Russian Federation: Registrationfiled in and registered in in International Classes 35, 38 and European Union Registrationfiled in and registered in in International Classes 35, 38 and 42; Registrationfiled in and registered in in International Classes 35, 38 and America filed on and granted on in International Classes 35, girls chats and Registrationfiled in and registered in in International Classes 38 and The Complainant and its online webchat are well-known, including in the Russian Federation and the European Union, especially in Germany.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain america was registered and used in bad faith. Paragraph 4 a of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of chatroulette scam following: i that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; ii that the Respondent has no chatroulette or legitimate interests in respect of the chayroulette domain name; and iii that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
11 chatroulette clones you should try
The Panel finds that the Complainant satisfies paragraph chafroulette a i of the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant satisfies paragraph 4 a ii of the Policy.
The Panel finds that the Complainant satisfies paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy. Martin Michaus Romero.