The disputed domain name (the "Domain Name") is clearly at least confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights. In this respect the Domain Name differs from the Complainant's European Union registered trade no 005761374 by just one letter. Further, the only sensible reading of the Domain Name is as a misspelling of that mark, with a missing letter "o" in the "room" aspect of this mark.
The nature of the Domain Name, and the fact that the Domain Name has only been used to display a pay-per click page make it clear that this is a case of "typosquatting", where the Respondent has registered and then used the Domain Name because of its similarity to the mark and domain name used by the Complainant and with a view to drawing to its website those who might, for example, mistype the Complainant's internet address into a browser. Typosquatting by reference to another's mark does not provide rights or legitimate interests and also involves registration and use in bad faith (see for example, the comment in sections 2.6.2, 3.1.4 and 3.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). In this case the use made of the Domain Name also falls within the scope of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Further, it would appear that whoever is actually behind the registration, that person or entity has decided to use the services of a "privacy service" that does not reveal the identity of the underlying registrant in response to a registrar verification request made in the course of UDRP proceedings. That is also an indicator of bad faith registration and use (as to which see the last paragraph of section 3.6 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and the decision in 1IQ PTY LTD v. 1337 Services LLC WIPO Case No. D2017-2156).
|