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 Complainant's mark is well-known. The company has been operating, in its present form, for over 10 years, with a mark continuously held and used during that period. It is highly unlikely that a registrant would identify text such as that in the disputed domain name, and register such a domain name, without knowledge of the Complainant's name and activities.
There is limited evidence of how the disputed domain name is being 'used'. The disputed domain name was only registered on 22 January 2019, and these proceedings were instigated on 25 January 2019. The Complainant included an annex a screenshot, dated 24 January 2019, which demonstrated that the disputed domain name did not resolve to any active web page. The Panel notes that, as of the date of this decision, the same is true.
The Panel takes note of the two cited by the Complainant regarding the interpretation of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy in these situations. These decisions (WIPO Case No. D2000-1228, Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com) and (Forum Case No. FA 95314, Caravan Club v. Mrgsale). There is little detail in these decisions, which are curiously chosen. However, they illustrate a broader approach to 'passive holding', as discussed in the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview, version 3.0, para 3.2 ('Telstra' line of cases), which is appropriate for the present proceedings.
Applying the Telstra criteria, the Panel notes, regarding the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s mark, that the mark is distinctive and enjoys an obvious reputation. Due weight is placed upon the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use. Regarding the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put, the Panel has also not identified such a plausible use.
This Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant's rights when it registered the disputed domain name, in light of its well-known nature. In the present case, the combination of the passive holding with the very close similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's mark (in a way that makes no independent linguistic sense) means that the Panel is satisfied that the requirements for finding bad faith have been satisfied.
|