This is a mandatory administrative proceeding pursuant to Paragraph 4 of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or "UDRP"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the CAC Supplemental Rules.
Paragraph 15 of the Rules provides that the Panel shall decide the complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
According to Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant must prove each of the following: (i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; (iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or confusingly similar domain name
The Complainant demonstrated that it owns the asserted trademark registrations for the word marks "INTRUM" and "INTRUM JUSTITIA" which were registered long before the registration of the disputed domain names by the Respondent. It is well established that a nationally or regionally registered trademark confers on its owner sufficient rights to satisfy the requirement of having trademark rights for the purposes of standing to file a UDRP case. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established such rights.
It is also well established that the generic top-level suffix may be disregarded when considering whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, as it is a necessary technical requirement of a domain name. This is true also for the so-called new generic top-level suffixes. Indeed, it has been repeatedly held in numerous UDRP cases that gTLDs such as ".online", ".site" and ".website" have no distinctive character (see for example recent CAC Cases No. 103323, 103114 and 102865) and would most likely be disregarded by web users, especially given that these words are descriptive for use on the Internet.
All three disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant's trademark "INTRUM" in its entirety. It is therefore easy for the Panel to find that the disputed domain names are identical to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Lack of rights or legitimate interests
The Respondent has not filed a Response and has neither provided any other information that would oppose the Complainant's allegations. Therefore, the Panel holds that the Complainant successfully presented its prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.
In particular, the Respondent is not in any way connected with the Complainant nor is it authorized to use the Complainant’s trademarks for its commercial activities. In addition, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names pursuant to Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. Furthermore, it was demonstrated by evidence submitted by the Complainant that the disputed domain names have not been used for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use, but rather redirected to the Complainant’s UK official website.
Considering the facts of this case, it seems obvious to the Panel that the Respondent knew (or should have known) about the Complainant and its trademarks when it registered the disputed domain names.
The Panel, therefore, finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names.
C. Registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith
With respect to the bad faith argument, the Complainant states, in summary, that: (a) the registration and use of the disputed domain names is a deliberate and calculated attempt of the Respondent to improperly benefit from the Complainant’s rights; (b) the Respondent knew or must have known about the Complainant and its trademarks; (c) the disputed domain names are identical to the trademarks; (d) the registration of all three disputed domain names follows a pattern of abusive registrations; (e) the Respondent has failed to present credible evidence-backed rationale for registering the disputed domain names; (f) the disputed domain names redirect to Complainant’s website; (g) the Respondent failed to respond to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter; (h) the Respondent used registration under privacy shield to hide its identity.
The Panel has already found that the disputed domain names are identical to the Complainant's trademark "INTRUM". It is well established that mere registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark by an unaffiliated entity can lead to the presumption of bad faith.
In addition, the Panel finds that the Complainant submitted evidence sufficiently demonstrating that the Respondent must have (or should have) been aware of the existence of the Complainant, its trademarks, and its domain names. It is difficult to conceive that the Respondent would have no prior knowledge of the Complainant and it is equally difficult to find any good faith reason for the registration of the disputed domain names by the Respondent. The fact that the disputed domain names redirect to one of the Complainant’s official websites clearly shows that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its rights.
The Panel notes that the absence of response to the cease and desist letter can hardly be attributed to the Respondent’s bad faith as it was not sent to the Respondent. That said, the Panel believes that all other arguments and submitted evidence relating to the Respondent’s bad faith as summarized above have merit and the Panel, therefore, finds there are several signs of bad faith in registering and use of the disputed domain names by the Respondent.
Therefore, the Panel holds that the disputed domain names have been registered and have been used by the Respondent in bad faith.
In conclusion, the Panel finds that all three elements required by Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy were met and makes the following decision.
|