The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy). In particular, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name includes the trademark in its entirety, without any addition or deletion.
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy). Respondent's default in submitting any of the theoretically possible rebuttal of Complainant's detailed prima facie submissions leaves the Panel uncomfortable in finding possible justifications for Respondent's fair use of the disputed domain names.
Notwithstanding the disclaimer in Respondent's website states "Company Disclaimer: AvastCom Support is an independent technical support service for software. We are unique as we have expertise in products from a wide variety of third-party companies. Any use of Trademarks, Brands, Products and Services is referential and AvastCom Supprot. has no affiliation with any of these third-party companies. The service we offer is also available on the website of the brand owners", it is the Panel belief the disputed domain name may not be considered genuinely noncommercial, and clearly distinct from Complainant's services and websites. This is particularly the case where Complainant's trademarks are intensively used without any additional/differentiating element (either in the domain name as well as in the website, reproducing the trademark) and the services are likely to overlap with Complainant's professional services covered by the trademarks registrations and offered in addition to the classical free version of the famous antivirus software platform. For such reasons, it is the Panel's belief the disputed domain names is more likely to "corner the market" in domain names that reflect the (well-known) trademark, according to last element of OKI DATA test Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903), as already state by previous panels in CAC decisions No. 101909 and 101917 (avastcustomersupport.com).
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy). The disputed domain name resolves in a duplication of the famous AVAST trademark, prominently displayed in the website purportedly used in conjunction with Complainant's trademarked services.
|