The Panel accepts that this is a clear and obvious case of typo squatting. The only sensible reading of the Domain Name is as a misspelling of the Complainant's name and trade mark with two letter "o"s in place of one, combined with the ".com" top level domain.
It follows from this that the Complainant's mark is clearly recognisable in the Domain Name and that the Complainant thereby holds a mark that is "confusingly similar" to the Domain Name as that term is understood under the UDRP. In this respect see section 1.7 and 1.9 the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (the “WIPO Overview 3.0”). The Complainant has therefore made out the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP.
Further, typosquatting usually signals an intention on the part of the respondent to confuse users seeking or expecting the complainant (see section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). There is no right or legitimate interest in holding a domain name for that purpose and this also usually constitutes evidence that no such right or legitimate interest exists. Also the registration and holding of a domain name to take advantage of such actual or potential confusion will usually involve bad faith registration and use (see sections 3.1.4 and 3.2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0).
In this case, the exact reasons for registration are unclear, particularly since no operational website appears to have ever operated from the Domain Name. But that does not matter as the Panel is satisfied that the only sensible conclusion, absent any evidence or argument to the contrary, is that the Respondent intended to take some unfair advantage of the association of the Domain Name with the Complainant's marks in some manner or other. That is sufficient for a finding of bad faith registration and use (as to which see, for example, Match.com, LP v. Bill Zag and NWLAWS.ORG, WIPO Case No. D2004-0230). It follows that the Complainant has therefore made out the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) and 4(a)(iii) of the UDRP.
|