Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant proves each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the disputed domain names should be transferred or revoked:
(i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and
(iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
The Panel will proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in this proceeding.
RIGHTS
The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the disputed domain name <certicode.info> is identical to Complainant's Trademark and that disputed domain names <certicode-activation.com>, <certicodeplus-activation.com>, <certicode-plus.com>, <certicode-plus.info> and <certicode-plus.net> are confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademark as the addition of the terms “ACTIVATION” or “PLUS” and a hyphen is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademark
For sake of completeness, the Panel asserts that the top-level suffix in the domain name (i.e. the ".com", ".net" and ".info") must be disregarded under the identity / confusing similarity test as it is a necessary technical requirement of registration.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Complainant satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP.
NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS
The Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP (please see, for example, WIPO case no. D2003-0455, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.).
Some of the disputed domain names are used in furtherance of a phishing scheme, others are inactive and one displays couple of links to websites unrelated to Complainant and Respondent. Apparently, such content of websites under disputed domain names cannot establish legitimate interest of the Respondent in the disputed domain names. As asserted by the Complainant (and unchallenged by the Respondent), the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Neither is the Respondent in any way related to the Complainant. The Respondent failed to provide any information and evidence that it has relevant rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy).
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent did not establish any right or legitimate interest to the disputed domain names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).
BAD FAITH
As stated above, some of the disputed domain names are used in furtherance of a phishing scheme, others are inactive and one displays couple of links to websites unrelated to Complainant and Respondent. It is therefore clear to the Panel, that the Respondent engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct targeted on the Complainant where the Respondent registered several domain names containing Complainant's Trademark, used some of them for apparent bad faith activity (phishing) and left the others inactive or displaying worthless links. Such conduct of the Respondent is a clear evidence of bad faith upon registration and use of the disputed domain names.
As a result, the Panel found that the disputed domain names have been registered and used by the Respondent in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
|