NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:
COMPLAINANT:
Previous panels have found that slight spelling variations do not prevent a domain name from being confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark. Please see prior UDRP cases:
- WIPO Case No. D2016-1853, Arcelormittal S.A. v. Cees Willemsen, <arclormittal.com> and <arelormittal.com>;
- CAC Case No. 101390, BOLLORE v. Roy <boll0re.com>
The Respondent is not known as “BOLLOREE”, but as “MICH JOHN”, and has not acquired trademarks or mark rights on the relevant term. Past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the WHOIS information was not similar to the disputed domain name, for instance:
- FORUM Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston / Elite Media Group <bobsfromsketchers.com> (“Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Chad Moston / Elite Media Group.” The Panel therefore found under paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name under that paragraph.)
- FORUM Case N° FA 699652, Braun Corp. v. Loney (“concluding that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that Respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and Complainant had not authorized Respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark”).
Furthermore, the website in relation with the disputed domain name displays the message “Index of”. Past panels have established that, in this case, the Respondent fails to make an active use of the domain name, and therefore, has no legitimate interest regarding the domain name:
- FORUM Case No. 1745812, Dell Inc. v. Suchada Phrasaeng (“Complainant claims the disputed domain names currently redirect users to a website that lacks any content, except for the message “Index of /” (essentially a directory listing for the domain names). Failure to make active use of a confusingly similar domain name evidences a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. […] Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use with the disputed domain names“ under paragraph 4(c)(i) and (iii) of the Policy.)
The Complainant’s trademark BOLLORE is well-known and distinctive. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademarks BOLLORE in the following cases:
- CAC Case No. 101498, BOLLORE SA v. Naquan Riddick (“The Respondent registered the Disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's well-known trademark.”);
- CAC Case No. 101696, BOLLORE v. Hubert Dadoun (“As the Complainant is also one of the largest 500 companies in the world, the Panel accepts the Complainant's contention that their trademark has a strong reputation and is in fact to be considered well-known.”)";
- CAC Case No. 101494, BOLLORE SA v. Dillan Dee Jackson (“the Panel finds that, in light of the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark, with which the Disputed domain name is confusingly similar, and of the prior registration and use of the trademark BOLLORÉ by the Complainant, including in the Respondent’s country, the Respondent was more likely than not aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of the registration of the Disputed domain names.”).
By registering the disputed domain name with the misspelling of the trademark BOLLORE by the addition of the letter “E” in the trademark, the Complainant can state that this misspelling was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademarks. Previous UDRP panels have seen such actions as evidence of bad faith, for instance:
- FORUM Case No. FA 877979, Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration Philippines: finding bad faith registration and use of the <microssoft.com> domain name as it merely misspelled the complainant’s MICROSOFT mark.
- FORUM Case No. 157321, Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Bennie Hu (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of a domain name that differs from Complainant’s mark by only one letter indicates “typosquatting”, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use.”).
Thus, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, the Complainant contends that it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the trademark. Past Panels have held that a registration is constitutive of bad faith, for instance FORUM Case No. FA 744444, Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler (“finding bad faith where the respondent was “well-aware” of the complainant’s YAHOO! mark at the time of registration.”).
As prior WIPO UDRP panels have held, the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may also be evidence of bad faith registration and use, for instance:
- WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows
- WIPO Case No. D2000-0400, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen.
RESPONDENT: None.
|