With regard to the first UDRP element, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name <gnoslslesaffre.com> is, if not identical with, then at least confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade marks LE SAFFRE and GNOSIS BY LESAFFRE. Indeed, the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trade mark LE SAFFRE in its entirety. The addition of the term “gnosls” is not sufficient to alter a finding of confusing similarity because it obviously alludes to the Complainant’s Gnosis by Le Saffre business unit. The Panel follows in this respect the view established by numerous other panels that a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant's trade mark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for the purposes of the UDRP (see, for example, WIPO Case No D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy <porsche-autopartes.com>). In addition, it could be argued that this is a case of “typo squatting” since the disputed domain name contains a misspelling of the Complainant’s trade mark GNOSIS BY LESAFFRE in that it replaces the letter “i” in “gnosis” with the letter “l” to read “gnosls” and omits the word “by” from the Complainant’s trade mark. This analysis would equally lead the Panel to the conclusion that the disputed domain name is at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks. The omission of the word “by” does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trade marks, and its associated domain name; rather to the contrary, it still suggests that the disputed domain name provides access to the Gnosis by Lesaffre division of the Complainant's business. The Panel follows in this respect the view established by numerous other decisions that a domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trade mark is to be considered confusingly similar to the relevant trade mark (see, for example, WIPO Case No D2003-0093, Microsoft Corporation -v- X-Obx Designs <xobx.com>) (“Typographical error variations and misspellings of trademarked terms have long been found to be confusingly similar”).
With regard to the second UDRP element, there is no evidence before the Panel to suggest that the Respondent has made any use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Neither is there any indication that the Respondent is making legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. As at the time of the Amended Complaint and of this decision, the disputed domain name resolves to a “typical” parking page with commercial links, which additionally suggests that the disputed domain name may be for sale. One of these PPC links is to “Hefe” (the German word for yeast) and therefore trades off the complainant’s trade marks. The Panel follows the view of numerous other panels who have found that the use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use (see, for example, Forum Case No FA 970871, Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees); and WIPO Case No D2007-1695, Mayflower Transit LLC v. Domains by Proxy Inc./Yariv Moshe (stating that Respondent’s use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark for the purpose of offering sponsored links does not of itself qualify as a bona fide use)). The Panel further finds that the Respondent is not affiliated with or related to the Complainant in any way and is neither licensed nor otherwise authorised by the Complainant to make any use of the Complainant's trade marks or to apply for or use the disputed domain name. Finally, the Whois information also does not suggest that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name <gnoslslesaffre.com>. Absent any response from the Respondent, or any other information indicating the contrary, the Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
With regard to the third UDRP element, the Complainant adduced evidence to show that, if the Respondent had carried out a Google search for the term “gnoslslesaffre”, the search results would have yielded several results related to the Complainant and its business unit Gnosis by Lesaffre. It is therefore reasonable to infer that the Respondent either knew, or should have known, that the disputed domain name would be identical with or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark, and that he registered the disputed domain name in full knowledge of the Complainant's trade mark. Furthermore, the disputed domain name currently resolves to a parking page with commercial links. The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submissions that the Respondent is attempting to attract Internet users for commercial gain to its own website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website to which the disputed domain name resolves (see, for example, WIPO Case No D2018-0497, StudioCanal v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Sudjam Admin, Sudjam LLC). Absent any response from the Respondent, or any other information indicating the contrary, the Panel therefore also accepts that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
|