1. In order to succeed the claim, the Complainant has to prove that all of the elements embedded in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and
(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
2. The Panel reviewed carefully the Complaint and the evidence provided by the Complainant. The Respondent filed neither administratively compliant Response nor provided the Panel with any evidence. The Panel based its finding and the Decision on the evidence presented by the Complainant and available websites and public information concerning the disputed domain name, namely the WHOIS databases.
3. The Complainant has proved that it is a long standing and successful leading broadcast operator. It is undisputable that its trademarks and domain names contain the term “EUTELSAT”. It was established that the Complainant is among others the proprietor of the worldwide trademark EUTELSAT.
4. The Panel therefore came to the conclusions as follows:
A. THE DOMAIN NAME IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR
The disputed domain was registered in September 2019 and incorporated the Complainant’s distinctive trademark EUTELSAT.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <euteslat.com> was created by an inversion of the letters “L” and “S” in the trademark EUTELSAT. The inversion of letters is qualified as a typosquatting which consists in an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark and does not suffice to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. The Panel can refer to the WIPO Case No. D2003-0093, Microsoft Corporation v. X-Obx Designs <xobx.com> that typographical error variations and misspellings of trademarked terms have long been found to be confusingly similar.
The Panel finds that the gTLD .website does not create any distinctiveness to the disputed domain name because the addition of the gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to Complainant’s trademark and does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and Complainant, its trademark and its domain names. The Panel can refer to the CAC Case No. 102545, EUTELSAT S.A. v. Milen Radumilo <drh-eutelsat.com>, the CAC 102237 and the WIPO Case No. D2017-1018, EUTELSAT SA v. Jérôme Mario <eutelsat-paris.com>.
The Panel therefore considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark EUTELSAT in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN RESPECT OF THE DOMAIN NAME
The Complainant has never granted the Respondent any right to use the EUTELSAT trademark within the disputed domain name, nor is the Respondent affiliated to the Complainant in any form. The Respondent was not found that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name and has got interest over the disputed domain name or the major part of it. When entering the terms “eutelsat” in the Google search engine, the returned results pointed to the Complainant’s business activities only.
The Respondent could have easily performed a similar search before registering the disputed domain name and would have quickly learnt that the trademarks are owned by the Complainant and that the Complainant has been using its trademarks worldwide. The Respondent has not by virtue of the content of the website, nor by its use of the disputed domain name shown that they will be used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy).
C. THE DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH
i. THE DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED IN BAD FAITH
The Complainant’s trademark rights pre-date the registration of the disputed domain name and the Respondent has never been authorized by the Complainant to use these trademarks nor to register the disputed domain name. It is inconceivable that using the well-known trademark EUTELSAT in the disputed domain name by the inversion of two letters "L" and "S" is a deliberate and calculated attempt to improperly benefit from the Complainant’s rights.
ii. THE DOMAIN NAME IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH
The finding of bad faith is supported by the Panel´s finding that the mere registration of the disputed domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising a misspelling of a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity) can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.
The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name <euteslat.com> in a phishing scheme, attempting to pass off as one of the Complainant’s executive, in order to receive payment in place of the Complainant. Thus, it is obvious that the Respondent necessarily knew about the Complainant and its affiliates. The Panel can refer to the WIPO Case No. D2004-0673, Ferrari S.p.A v. American Entertainment Group Inc. that it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks.
The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
|