According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy the Complainant must prove for the requested transfer of the disputed domain name that
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
There is no reasonable doubt that the Complaint complies with all these requirements:
(i)
The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark corresponding and/or containing the distinctive part "TANJUG" since 2014. The Complainant's trademark was registered prior to the registration of the disputed domain name (May 31, 2017) and is widely well-known.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark "Tanjug.Tačno" as it includes the first part "TANJUG" of the trademark merely adding the TLD ".info". As previous panels have ruled, adding, deleting or substituting letters or numbers of the Complainant's registered mark does not preclude a finding of confusing similarity. Therefore, deleting the part ".Tačno" of the Complainant's mark is insufficient to negate the confusingly similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's mark (see CREDIT AGRICOLE SA v. Walter Mauche, CAC case No. 101666). This also applies because - according to the information provided by the Complainant - the Complainant is well-known under the acronym "TANJUG" without the addition of "Tačno".
(ii)
Furthermore, the Complainant provided prima facie evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name . As asserted by the Complainant (and unchallenged by the Respondent), the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Neither is the Respondent in any way related to the Complainant. The Respondent failed to provide any information and evidence that it has relevant rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).
The Panel finds that the Respondent has made no use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. In fact, the disputed domain name displays highly similar content to the Complainant's website operated under the domain name <tanjug.rs>. Competing use is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use (see CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A. v. Joseph Hafley, CAC case no. 101604). The website operated under the disputed domain name also has a commercial component as it publishes commercial ads and therefore the disputed domain name is not used in a non-commercial way.
In lack of any Response from the Respondent, or any other information indicating the contrary, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
(iii)
For a Complaint to succeed, a panel must be satisfied that a domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii)).
The Panel finds it hard to believe that the Respondent would have chosen and registered the disputed domain name in good faith, without having been aware of the Complainant's TANJUG trademark which - to the conviction of the Panel - is an acronym of its name and therefore not being used in any other language. As it ensues from the evidence provided by the Complainant a website is being operated under the disputed domain name where news and information highly similar to the content provided by the Complainant under its domain name <tanjug.rs> are being published. Therefore, the Respondent has been taking unfair advantage of Complainant's trademarks reputation by misleading the Internet users to believe that the website operated under the disputed domain name is associated with the Complainant. As asserted by the Complainant (and unchallenged by the Respondent) the Respondent also tried to register an own trademark "Tanjug Info" which has been denied by the Serbian Intellectual Property Office because it was identical or similar to an already registered mark (Tanjug.Tačno).
Therefore the Panel finds, that the disputed domain name <tanjug.info> has been registered and is being used in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
|