Complainant has established that it is the owner of several trademark registrations for LOVEHONEY. The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the LOVEHONEY trademark as its distinctive element. Many UDRP panels have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the disputed domain name incorporates a complainant’s trademark in its entirety. The addition of the descriptive term “shop” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.store” is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity.
In the opinion of the Panel, Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use any of its trademarks or to register the disputed domain name incorporating its trademarks. Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name with intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademarks of Complainant.
The Panel accepts the undisputed submission of Complainant that the disputed domain name resolves to a website which copies a prominent part of the website of Complainant. The Panel does not consider such use a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. In addition, the website under the disputed domain name does not accurately and prominently disclose the relationship between Respondent and Complainant as the holder of the LOVEHONEY trademarks, in particular as there has never been any business relationship between Complainant and Respondent. Respondent is also not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has it acquired any trademark or service mark rights.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Noting the status of the LOVEHONEY marks and the overall circumstances of this case, in particular the copying of part of the website of Complainant by Respondent, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant’s marks.
The Panel notes that the disputed domain name resolves to a website which is partly a copy of the website of Complainant and incorporates Complainant’s marks, which indicates, in the circumstances of this case, that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name with the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the trademarks of Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a service on its website or location, which constitutes registration and use in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
|