NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:
COMPLAINANT:
The Respondent’s domain name <maharashi.xyz> consists of the Complainant’s trademark MAHARISHI in addition to the top level “.xyz”. Similarly, the domain name <maharashis.xyz> consists of the Complainants trademark with the addition of a possessive "s" suggesting Maharishi as the origin. The addition of the top level .xyz does not in any way remove the risk of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark and service mark. The Complainant asserts that this should be sufficient for the Panel to find identity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark as the applicable top-level suffix in a domain name is usually disregarded, except in cases where the applicable top-level suffix may itself form part of the relevant trademark.
The use of the Complainant's trademarks in the disputed domain names is likely to create confusion amongst Internet users as to whether the domain name is connected with the Complainant in some manner, or to induce the Complainant to attempt to buy the domain names.
According to the Complainant, the Respondent has no known personal or trademark rights or any other legitimate interests in respect of the domain names that are the subject of this proceedings. There is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant has neither authorized the Respondent’s use of its MAHARISHI trademark, nor has the Complainant licensed any of the rights attached to its trademark to the Respondent.
The Complainant states that according to the established administrative case-law, the Panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the Respondent is acting in bad faith. Examples of what may be cumulative circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith include the Complainant having multiple trademark registrations and the registrant's lack of any real use of the domain. The Panel may draw inferences about whether the domain name was used in bad faith given the circumstances surrounding registration, and vice versa.
The trademark MAHARISHI of the Complainant is registered in a number of countries and is used worldwide. The Complainant is of the opinion that it is most likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant, and its trademarks when the disputed domain names were registered, and attempted to gain a profit by means of a pay-per-click scheme and/or by selling the domain names.
As mentioned, the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve are “for sale”, cf. the text on the red band at the top-right corner of the websites. Both domain names are listed for sale for USD 1.000, which is way in excess of the registration costs.
In addition, the websites display links to MAHARISHI UNIVERSITY, a name which is highly similar to the Complainant’s trade name, and by clicking on such link a further page with links to i.a. a “Vedic Yagaya Foundation”, as well as links to other universities and colleges, are displayed. Many of the links displayed contain the trademark MAHARISHI. While the Respondent may not have a direct influence on the links displayed, use of domain names identical or nearly identical to Complainant’s trademark for display links to websites offering competing goods and services constitute an act of trademark infringement, and using the Complainant’s trademark to attract internet users to commercial websites having no relation with the Complainant and its trademark, or simply to gain money through pay-per-click schemes, would be deemed an act of unfair competition in many jurisdictions, besides representing evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith.
Finally, the registrant is hiding behind a proxy which, in conjunction with the circumstances mentioned above, supports a conclusion of bad faith on part of the Respondent.
|