This is a mandatory administrative proceeding pursuant to Paragraph 4 of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or "UDRP"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") and the CAC Supplemental Rules.
Paragraph 15 of the Rules provides that the Panel shall decide the complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
According to Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following: (i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; (iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or confusingly similar domain name
The Complainant demonstrated that it owns the asserted international trademark registrations for the word and figurative marks "MAJE", the first of which being registered already 17 years earlier than the disputed domain name. It is well established that a nationally or regionally registered trademark confers on its owner sufficient rights to satisfy the requirement of having trademark rights for the purposes of standing to file a UDRP case. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established such rights.
It is also well established that the generic top-level suffix .com may be disregarded when considering whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, as it is a necessary technical requirement of a domain name.
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark "MAJE" in its entirety. The adding of a prefix "UK-" must be considered as insufficient to prevent or diminish confusing similarity. This is true especially given that "UK" is widely recognized as the country code for the United Kingdom and the prefix would very likely be perceived as a geographical designation, thus lacking distinctive character. This finding is consistent with earlier decisions of CAC (eg. CAC Case No. 101270 and CAC Case No. 101503).
The Panel, therefore, finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Lack of rights or legitimate interests
The Respondent has not filed a Response and has neither provided any other information that would oppose the Complainant's allegations. Therefore, the Panel holds that the Complainant successfully presented its prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
In particular, the Respondent is not in any way connected with the Complainant nor is it authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark for its commercial activities. In addition, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. Furthermore, it was demonstrated by evidence submitted by the Complainant that the disputed domain name has not been used for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use.
The Panel, therefore, finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
C. Registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith
With respect to the bad faith argument, the Complainant states, in summary, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark, that the Respondent must have had actual knowledge of the Complainant's rights in the trademark, and that the disputed domain name is resolving to an inactive website.
The Panel has already found that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark "MAJE". The Complainant submitted evidence that the Panel believes sufficiently demonstrates the Respondent must have or at least should have been aware of the existence of the Complainant, its trademark and at least its <maje.com> domain name. The evidence submitted by the Complainant also shows that, at least upon filing the complaint, the disputed domain name was inactive / directed to a parking page.
It is well established that mere registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark by an unaffiliated entity can lead to the presumption of bad faith. Furthermore, typical circumstances demonstrating respondent's bad faith include a situation where the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the respondent's website or location (see Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).
Taking into account the above-described facts and evidence submitted by the Complainant, the Panel is satisfied that several signs of bad faith in registering and use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent can be found, in particular: (i) the degree of similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trademark; (ii) absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no response to Complaint with conceivable or credible explanations of the Respondent's conduct; (iii) lack of use of the disputed domain name; and (iv) absence of any conceivable good faith use.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and has been used by the Respondent in bad faith.
In conclusion, the Panel finds that all three elements required by Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy were met and makes the following decision.
|