FINDINGS:
In consideration of the Factual Background, the Parties’ Contentions stated above and its own web searches, the Panel comes to the following conclusions:
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 10 (a) of the Rules provides that the Panel “shall conduct the administrative proceeding in such manner as it considers appropriate in accordance with the Policy and these Rules.
A. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant demonstrates that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by the national law of a Member State and/or European Union law.
Complainant has duly shown the existence of its registered trademark rights for the “ESSAYTIGERS” mark registered on April 14, 2020. Even if the trademark was not registered until 2020, the sign has been used as a trademark, both on the website and on social networks since at least 2012.
Indeed, the domain name <essaytigers.com> is exploited since December 31, 2012, on a website using the said sign as a trademark. Regarding social networks, the Facebook account was created on January 18, 2013 and the Twitter account on June 2013. The Glassdoor profile was also created on September 4, 2013.
Therefore, Panel finds that Complainant has duly shown that it is using the ESSAYTIGERS sign as a trademark prior to the disputed domain name’s registration and can therefore benefit from Common law rights.
Firstly, the disputed domain name reproduces the ESSAYTIGERS trademark in a very similar way. It only reverses the words “essay” and “tiger” and the absence of the letter “s” at the end of the word “tiger” does not dismiss the risk of confusion. Panels already considered that “The reversal of the elements does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Trademark so as to prevent a finding of confusing similarity (See for example AtomGate. c. Bolloré (SA), CAC case n° 102013). Moreover, the absence of a letter such a “s” has already been found irrelevant. See for example Fundacion Comercio Electronico v. ArcelorMittal (SA) CAC Case No. 102179: “the deletion of a letter from a trademark, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity to the relevant mark for the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy”).
Secondly, Panel usually considers that the addition of a gTLD does not dispel the likelihood of confusion between a trademark and a domain name Since it only constitutes a technical requirement of domain names (See e.g. Crédit Agricole S.A. v. Roy M Oishi, CAC case No. 101545).
Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to “ESSAYTIGERS” sign in which Complainant has Common Law rights.
To the satisfaction of the Panel, Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service trademark in which it has rights. The requirement of Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is therefore met.
|