NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:
COMPLAINANT:
The Complainant asserts it has registered rights in the French word trade mark; the EU word trade mark and the International word trade mark for STUDIO CANAL described above. It submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trade marks.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent is typosquatting and the disputed domain name is a misspelling of its trade marks for STUDIO CANAL. According to the Complainant, the inversion of “i” and “o” in the disputed domain name does not change the overall impression that the disputed domain name is connected to its trade mark.
It notes that Panels have found that slight spelling variations do not prevent trade marks from being considered confusingly similar. In support of this argument the Complainant cites WIPO Case No. D2003-0093, Microsoft Corporation v. X-Obx Designs <xobx.com>.
It follows the Complainant contends, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar.
The Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant refers to the decision in WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd. and claims that once it has proved a prima facie case, the burden of proof shifts, and it is up to the Respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In circumstances where the Respondent fails to prove its case, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied limb 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois record as the disputed domain name. Referring to Forum Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston / Elite Media Group <bobsfromsketchers.com>, the Complainant notes that Panels have found that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the Whois information was not similar to the disputed domain name.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, it is not related to the Complainant in any way nor do the parties carry out any business together. Moreover, the Complainant confirms that the Respondent had not applied for, or been granted a licence to use the disputed domain name. The Complainant notes that use of the disputed domain name is for the purpose of typosquatting. It explains that typosquatting takes advantage of Internet users typographical errors and is evidence that a Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in a disputed domain name. In support of this point the Complainant relies on the Panel’s finding in Forum Case No. 1597465, The Hackett Group, Inc. v. Brian Herns / The Hackett Group.
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name has remained inactive since registration which proves the Respondent had no plan to use the mark and therefore, he has no legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
As a result, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its earlier and distinctive trade marks for STUDIO CANAL.
It says that the Respondent could have carried out a simple Google search prior to registration and it would have found several results for STUDIO CANAL. It claims that the Respondent could not have ignored the existence of the STUDIO CANAL at the time of registration, and it claims this is not a coincidence. In support of this point the Complainant relies on the Panel’s findings in WIPO Case No. D2017-0660, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG v. Pan Jing.
Referring to the findings in - Forum Case No. FA 877979, Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration Philippines and Forum Case No. 157321, Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Bennie Hu, the Complainant submits that previous panels have found misspelling of trade marks as evidence of bad faith.
The Complainant further submits that the disputed domain name is in-active and the Respondent has not demonstrated any use of the disputed domain name. It argues that it is not conceivable that the Respondent would be using the disputed domain name for any other purpose that would not be illegal such as passing off, infringement of consumer legislation or infringement of the Complainant’s registered trade marks.
Therefore, the Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
|