A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As per evidence on record, the Complainant owns the trademark “JARDIANCE” since September 3, 2008. Based on this, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has shown its trademark rights in “JARDIANCE”.
Regarding the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name reproduces the trademark in its entirety, namely “jardiance”, notwithstanding the top-level domain “.surf”, which for the purposes of this dispute shall be disregarded.
Based on this, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
As a result, the Panel determines that the Complaint has satisfied the first element set under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Based on the evidence on record, the uncontested facts indicate that a) the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name; b) the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and is not authorized to carry out any activity for the Complainant and c) the Respondent has not acquired trademark rights on this term.
Further to this, and as asserted by the Complainant, it appears that the Respondent has been redirecting the disputed domain name to the website: https://cindymatches.com.
These fact pattern lead the Panel to conclude that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
In conclusion, the uncontested facts on record and on the balance of probability, the Panel determines that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and consequently the Complainant has fulfilled the second requirement set under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The trademark in this dispute appears to be fanciful trademark, which is likely made up and only have meaning when applied to a good or service. Based on this, the Panel finds that the Respondent ought to be aware of the Complainant’s trademarks at the time of registration; a simple search would have sufficed for this. Furthermore, this is an obligation imposed under paragraph 2 of the Policy (see paragraph 3.2.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).
In addition to this, the confusingly similar disputed domain name was apparently being used to promote unrelated services, which can evidence a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use.
In light of the circumstances of the case, based on the available records and on balance of probabilities, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith according to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
D. Decision
For the foregoing reasons and in concurrence with the provisions specified under Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and Paragraph 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant.
|