A) Confusing similarity
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name <sophiawebster-shoes.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark "SOPHIA WEBSTER”.
The Panel agrees with the Complainant's assertion that the addition at the end of the Domain Name of the generic word “shoes”, i.e. Complainant's primary products, is not sufficient to escape the finding that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. On the contrary, the generic term “shoes” reinforces the confusion between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark.
B) Lack of rights or legitimate interests
The Domain Name at issue is a distinctive, non-descriptive name. It is unlikely that the Respondent registered the Domain Name without having the Complainant firmly in mind. The Complainant’s assertions that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant are sufficient to constitute a prima facie demonstration of absence of rights on or legitimate interest in the Domain Name on the part of the Respondent.
The burden of evidence therefore shifts to the Respondent to show using concrete evidence that it does have rights on or legitimate interests in that name. The Respondent has made no attempt to do so. Furthermore, the Domain Name has been associated with a website displaying images of Complainant’s products.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
C) Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Complainant gives some sound bases for its contention that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith and that it has been used in bad faith.
Firstly, given the contents displayed on Respondent's website, i.e. images of Complainant's products and trademarks, Complainant’s trademark, and the fact that the registration of the Complainant’s trademark predates the registration of the Domain Name, the Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the Domain Name.
Secondly, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s unchallenged assertion that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name with the aim of creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.
Thirdly, it appears from the document provided by the Complainant that the Respondent is using the Domain Name and the corresponding website for commercial gain by pretending to sell Complainant's products.
|