I. Identity
The Panel agrees that the domain name <expanscience.store> is identical to the Complainant's earlier trademark EXPANSCIENCE since it incorporates its earlier trademark EXPANSCIENCE in its entirety, without any addition or deletion.
Moreover, the extension “.store” is not to be taken into consideration when examining the identity/confusingly similarity between the Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain name (WIPO Case No. D2005-0016, Accor v. Noldc Inc.). The mere adjunction of a TLD such as “.store” is irrelevant as it is well established that the generic Top Level Domain is insufficient to avoid a finding of identity/confusingly similarity (WIPO Case No. 2013-0820, L’Oréal v Tina Smith, WIPO Case No. D2008-0820 Titoni AG v Runxin Wang and WIPO Case No. D2009-0877, Alstom v. Itete Peru S.A.).
Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that the first condition under the Policy is met.
II. Lack of Respondent's rights or legitimate interests
The Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the burden of proof shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such appropriate allegations or evidence, a complainant is generally deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP.
Based on the available evidence, the Respondent does not appear to be known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not a licensee of, nor has any kind of relationship with, the Complainant. The Complainant has never authorised the Respondent to make use of its trademark, nor of an identical trademark in the disputed domain name.
Finally, the disputed domain name redirects to a parking page with commercial links, related to the Complainant and its products. Such use does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services, or to a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Panel notes that the Respondent had an opportunity to comment on the Complaint’s allegations by filing a Response, which the Respondent failed to do.
Thus, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has at least established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel takes the view that also the second requirement under the Policy is met.
III. Bad Faith
The disputed domain name <expanscience.store> is identical to Complainant’s earlier EXPANSCIENCE trademark. Indeed, a Google search on the term “EXPANSCIENCE” provide several results, all of them related to the Complainant. Before the registration of the domain name <expanscience.store >, the Respondent could have done a simple Google search and would have found the existence of the Complainant's trademark.
The Respondent could not have ignored the Complainant’s trademark EXPANSCIENCE at the moment of the registration of the disputed domain name <expanscience.store >, which cannot be a coincidence.
The disputed domain name redirects to a parking page with commercial links related to the Complainant and its products. In this latter case, previous Panels have considered that this behavior was a proof of bad faith (WIPO Case No. D2018-0497, StudioCanal v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Sudjam Admin, Sudjam LLC).
In light of the foregoing, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and has been using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Thus, also the third and last condition under the Policy is satisfied.
|