The disputed domain names incorporate the CHATROULETTE trademark in its entirety.
Numerous UDRP panels have recognized that incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is at least confusingly similar to a registered trademark (see, , WIPO Case No. Moreover, it has been held in many UDRP decisions and has become a consensus view among UDRP panels (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0"), paragraph 1.9), that the addition of a descriptive term to a trademark in a domain name is normally insufficient in and of itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaints 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").
Accordingly, the addition of the terms "cam" to the beginning and "videos" to the end of Complainant's CHATROULETTE trademark does not dispel the confusing similarity arising from the incorporation of Complainant's CHATROULETTE trademark in the disputed domain names (especially not against the background that , the term "videos" directly points to Complainant's core business).
Therefore, Complainant has established the first element under the Policy set forth by paragraph 4(a)(i).
The Panel is further convinced on the basis of Complainant's undisputed contentions that Respondent has not made use of the disputed domain names in connection with a offering of goods or services, nor has Respondent been commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor can it be found that Respondent has made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use thereof without intent for commercial gain.
Respondent has not been authorized to use Complainant's CHATROULETTE trademark, either as a domain name or in any other way.
Complainant is Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette of Moscow, Russian Federation, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.