VIOOH Limited is a digital out of home marketplace connecting buyers and sellers through data and technology. Established in 2018, it operates under the domain name Viooh.com.



The domain name Voioh.com seems to be a misspelling of the company's domain, with the second and third letters switched. VIOOH Limited took legal action to obtain the domain, but they lost the case.

The Respondent argued that it was not a mistake and that the domain was registered as an acronym for Voice Over, reflecting their activities as a voice-over professional. As a result, the domain consists of "Voi"ce and "Oh," where the latter is the pronunciation of the letter "O."

It may seem far-fetched, but the Respondent is willing to surrender the domain in exchange for the cost it took to acquire it. The WIPO Panelist sided with the Respondent, ordering that the domain name Voioh.com remain with them.

The domain transfer request was denied.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER – ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

VIOOH Limited v. Adel Samir, VOIOH Case No. D2023-1190

Parties:

The complainant, VIOOH Limited, is a UK-based marketing technology firm represented by Nameshield of France. The respondent, Adel Samir, VOIOH, is based in Egypt.

Domain Name and Registrar:

The disputed domain name voioh.com is registered with Google LLC.

Procedural History:

The complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center on March 16, 2023. The Registrar provided information on the domain name registrant, which differed from the named respondent, on March 17, 2023. The center granted a suspension of proceedings on March 24, 2023, and Complainant filed an amended complaint on April 14, 2023. The proceedings resumed on April 20, 2023, and the Response was filed on May 10, 2023.

Factual Background:

VIOOH Limited operates a digital out of home marketplace connecting buyers and sellers through data and technology. Established in 2018, it is placed fourteenth in the MarTech 50 ranking for 2023.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists several circumstances that can be considered evidence of bad faith registration and use of a domain name, including situations where the respondent registered the domain name with the intent to sell it for a profit to the complainant or others, to prevent them from using a corresponding domain name, to disrupt a competitor's business, or to attract internet users through confusion with the complainant's mark.

The panel found that the complainant failed to prove that the respondent registered the domain name in bad faith. A finding of bad faith requires proof that the respondent had the complainant's trademark in mind when registering the domain name. The panel found that the domain name and the complainant's mark were not identical, the respondent was not engaged in the same area of commerce as the complainant, and the complainant's mark might not be well-known in the respondent's country. Additionally, the respondent's explanation for choosing the domain name seemed plausible.

The panel noted that the respondent expressed an offer to negotiate a settlement, which indicated a different intention than simply selling the domain name. The record did not indicate that this was a case of cybersquatting, so the complaint was denied.

In summary, the panel found that the complainant did not establish bad faith registration and use of the domain name by the respondent, and therefore, the complaint was denied.