Paragraph 15 (a) of the Rules states that the Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted, in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
If a Party does not comply with the provision of, or requirement under the Rules, and in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefore as it considers appropriate (Paragraph 14 of the Rules).
The Respondent has failed to submit a response and consequently has not contested any of the submissions made by the Complainant. The Panel will therefore make its decision on the basis of the factual statement submitted and the documents made available by the Complainant to support its contentions.
Paragraph 4 a. of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove each of the following three elements:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or a service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the licensee of the EU trade mark registration Hapag-Lloyd. This mark predates the registration of the disputed domain name "escrow-hapaglloyd.com" on 3 June 2013.
The disputed domain name " escrow-hapaglloyd.com " is comprised of the trade mark Hapag-Lloyd and the generic word "escrow'. As has been held in the case of Sony Kabashiki Kaisha v Inja, Kil (WIPO /D2000-149) "[n]either the addition of the ordinary descriptive word…nor the suffix ".com" detract from the overall impression of the dominant part of the name in each case, namely the trade mark SONY".
The distinctive word in the disputed domain name is the mark Hapag-Lloyd. Adding generic word 'escrow' to it is unlikely to avoid confusion. This is especially so where the added word 'escrow' is closely associated with the Complainant's business.
The Complainant asserts that it has received numerous calls from users of the website using the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name " escrow-hapaglloyd.com" is confusingly similar to the Complaint's licensed trade mark 'Hapag-Lloyd'.
B. Rights or legitimate interests
The second element the Complainant must prove is that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name (Paragraph 4 a.(ii) of the Policy).
In the absence of a Response, none of the grounds set out in Paragraph 4 c. of the Policy, by which a Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the domain name have been asserted.
The Complainant has not licenced or authorised the Respondent to use the Hapag-Llyod mark or incorporate it in the disputed domain name. There appears no reason for the Respondent to use of the Hapag-Lloyd mark in the disputed domain name other that to seek to create the impression of an association with the Complainant.
On the basis of the evidence submitted and in the absence of a Response, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
C. Registered and used in bad faith
The third element that the Complainant must prove is that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (Policy, paragraph 4 a.(iii)).
The registration of the trade mark Hapag-Lloyd predates the registration of the disputed domain name. Given the evidence submitted the Respondent must have known of the Hapag-Lloyd trade mark when it registered the disputed domain name.
Evidence of the registration and use of domain name in bad faith may be shown where "by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to [its] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent's] website..." (Policy paragraph 4 b.).
It appears from the evidence submitted that the disputed domain name has been used to trick users into believing that the domain name 'escrow-hapaglloyd.com' and the website using it are owned by or associated Hapag-Lloyd Limited, the Complainant.
On the basis of the uncontested evidence submitted by the Complainant the Panel finds that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith
|