A) Confusing similarity
The Panel agrees with the Complainant's assertion that the addition of the new gTLD “.digital” does not add any distinctiveness to the disputed domain name, and that it is well established that TLDs may be disregarded in the assessment under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy when comparing disputed domain names and trademarks.
B) Lack of legitimate rights or interests
The disputed domain name is a distinctive, non-descriptive name. It is unlikely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without having the Complainant in mind. The Complainant’s assertions that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant are sufficient to constitute a prima facie demonstration of absence of rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name on the part of the Respondent. The burden of evidence therefore shifts to the Respondent to show, using tangible evidence, that it does in fact have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
C) Registered or Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant gives sound bases for its contention that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith.
Firstly, owing to the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks, and so the Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademarks when registering the disputed domain name.
Secondly, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s unchallenged assertion that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the aim of creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark, and also to profit from this confusion for its own commercial gain.
Thirdly, the disputed domain name redirects to a parked page with no substantial content. Therefore, the Panel also accepts the Complainant’s unchallenged assertion that the Respondent has not made any use of the disputed domain name since its registration, and that the passive holding is further inference of bad faith.
Fourthly, the Respondent has not responded to nor denied any of the assertions made by the Complainant in this proceeding.
|