PRINCIPAL REASONS FOR THE DECISION
According to Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the Disputed domain name should be transferred or cancelled:
(i) the Disputed 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 of the Disputed domain name; and
(iii) the Disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel has examined the evidence available to it and has come to the following conclusion concerning the satisfaction of the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in these proceedings:
RIGHTS
The Disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark, company name and domains. This finding is based on the settled practice in evaluating the existence of a likelihood of confusion of
a) disregarding the top-level suffix in the domain name (i.e. “.biz”, “com” or “de”), and
b) not finding that the addition of a hyphen instead of a linguistically correct free space (the use of which is not possible in domain names) would be sufficient to distinguish a domain name from a trademark.
c) finding that the addition or omission of single or twin letters to or from an otherwise complex mark, does not automatically suffice to avoid the existence of confusing similarity. The Complainant’s EUTM is a word and device mark which consists of the elements “ig” and the words “Inspiration Group”. The letters "ig" are clearly an acronym of the following words. This does not make the Disputed domain name sufficiently different from the registered mark. As far as the company name and the domains of the Complainant are concerned, the only difference is the hyphen which can be disregarded. This leads to the finding that there is confusing similarity.
Therefore, the Panel comes to the conclusion that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS
The onus to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests is placed on the Complainant. However, once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP (see e.g. WIPO case no. D2003-0455, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.).
The Complainant has put forward that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed domain name. Neither is the Respondent in any way related to the Complainant. Nor has the Respondent been granted an authorization or license to use the Disputed domain name by the Complainant. This has not been contested by the Respondent. Instead, the Respondent failed to provide any information and evidence whatsoever that could have shown 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 Complainant on the other hand provided compelling evidence of an identity theft by the Respondent to the extent that fake profiles and web pages were created using both the Complainant’s name and logo.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent did not establish any right or legitimate interest to the Disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy). The Complainant has therefore also satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
BAD FAITH
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the Disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith. For this purpose, the Complainant has successfully put forward convincing prima facie evidence that the Respondent is using the Disputed domain name in such a way as to unfairly exploit the Complainant’s reputation and commercial interest. As shown by the Complainant, the Respondent has registered the Disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the Complainant’s business. This is clearly the case when considering the fake profile and web pages created by the Respondent. By using the Disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online locations, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location.
Given the reputation of the Complainant and its trademarks, company name and domains as supported by the Complainant’s evidence and the use of the Disputed domain name made by the Respondent, the Panel must conclude that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant's trademarks, domain and company name at the time of registering the Disputed domain name. Therefore, it has been established to the satisfaction of the Panel that the Disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, in order to intentionally 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 or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed domain name in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy). The Complainant has therefore also satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
|