The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
The mere registration of a domain name comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity creates a presumption of bad faith.
Particularly with respect to “automatically” generated pay-per-click links, panels have held that a respondent cannot disclaim responsibility for content appearing on the website associated with its domain name. Neither the fact that such links are generated by a third party, nor the fact that the respondent itself may not have directly profited, would by itself prevent a finding of bad faith.
The disputed domain name is likely to exploit typographical errors and misdirect those seeking authorized access to the PepsiCo Login Page to commercial advertisements related to PepsiCo, employee-related services or administration, and its competitor. Therefore, the disputed domain name operates by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website per UDRP paragraph 4(b). Given the fame of PEPSI, and the PEPSICO name and mark, it may be presumed that Respondent intended to commercially exploit the trademark significance given how this domain was put to use, including offering to sell it for a minimum of $500, and the fact it is a lookalike domain to the PepsiCo Login Page. Annex 8, PepsiCo, Inc. v. Alexandra Fard, D2011-1169 (WIPO Sept. 5, 2011) (transferring <summertimeispepsitime.com>) ("Given that the Complainant’s PEPSI marks are so well-known, the Respondent could only have registered or acquired the disputed domain name with an intent to capitalize on the valuable goodwill associated with the Complainant’s marks.")
Additional evidence of bad faith is that according to Domains By Proxy, the <owldomains@protonmail.com> account has been used to register another PEPSI-variant domain name in the past, <mypepsioc.com> . It is highly unlikely that the same <owldomains@protonmail.com> account belongs to two different organizations in different countries and phone numbers. Rather, it suggests that the Respondent is deliberately attempting to frustrate the real registrant's identity through multi-layered obfuscation.
|