PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
COMPLAINANT
The Complainant contends that disputed domain name <trezormini.com> is confusingly similar to the trademark TREZOR in which the Complainant has rights as it reproduces the trademark in its entirety with the mere addition of the descriptive term “mini” and the generic Top Level Domain “.com”.
The Complainant further underlines how the choice of the selected disputed domain name can in no way have been coincidental, since not only did the Respondent use the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, but also appears to be selling counterfeit products, very similar to those offered by the Complainant through its www.shop.trezor.io site, thus creating an impression of affiliation between the Complainant and the Respondent as well as creating a likelihood of confusion and damaging the Complainant’s reputation.
With reference to rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, the Complainant states that neither the Respondent, nor its products, are commonly known by the domain name, and that the Respondent does not possess any trademark to vouch for the use of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant further underlines how the Respondent has clearly proved, by registering the disputed domain name, that its sole interest was to obtain commercial gain while riding on the reputation of the Complainant and selling counterfeit products.
The Complainant therefore asserts that the Respondent does not have any legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
With reference to the circumstances evidencing bad faith, the Complainant indicates that, by selling on its website products similar to those sold by the Complainant and associating these to the TREZOR mark with the same meaning as the one given by the Complainant, the Respondent is clearly making an impression of affiliation between the counterfeit product and the original product.
Moreover, the Respondent is using the logo from the Complainant’s registered trademark on the website’s favicon, thus strengthening the impression of being the original producer of TREZOR product.
The Complainant also underlines how the Respondent is using a similar webpage layout, fonts, colors etc. to the original webpage of the Complainant “www.trezor.io”, where the original product and services may be purchased, thus again creating a likelihood of confusion and misleading consumers.
The Complainant further argues that, on the website under the disputed domain name, the Respondent is publishing several links to the Complainant´s other services such as the Complainant´s online service “wallet.trezor.io”, in order to mislead customers about the association with the Complainant (when there is no any) and to ride on the Complainant´s good reputation.
Finally, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is probably the same as the one involved in a previous WIPO proceeding against the Complainant, in which the latter was granted the cancellation of the disputed domain name, and highlights that in this case the Respondent is using the disputed domain name with a same name (only with a different Top-Level domain) to continue sharing its content. The Complainant believes that this behavior alone may be considered as acting in a bad faith.
The Complainant therefore feels that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.
RESPONDENT
NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.
|