Paragraph 15 of the Rules states that the Panel shall decide a 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 deemed applicable.
In the case of default by a Party, Rule 14 states that if a Party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with a provision of, or requirement under the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as appropriate.
In the present case, the Respondent has not submitted any Response and consequently has not contested any of the contentions made by the Complainant.
The Panel proceeds therefore to decide only on the basis of the Complainant’s factual statements and the documentary evidences provided in support of them.
1. The Complainant owns different trademarks with earlier priority date (comparing to the disputed domain name registration date), whose common distinctive element is identical to the Complainant name “PALANTIR”. Besides the EU protection, the trademarks are protected in the Respondent’s country of origin – the United States of America.
The disputed domain name <PALANTIRY> comprises of the distinctive element “PALANTIR-” followed by the letter “Y" and the Top-Level domain “.com” which needs to be disregarded under the confusing similarity test (as it is a technical requirement of registration).
The Complainant’s trademarks are thus fully comprised in the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Panel finds that the additional element “Y” does not alter the overall similarity of the registered trademarks and the disputed domain name.
Consequently, the trademarks “PALANTIR” and the disputed domain name “PALANTIRY” result phonetically, visually and conceptually almost identical.
The Panel considers therefore, that the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s previously registered trademarks to the extent that they are confusingly similar.
The Panel accordingly concludes that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
2. The Respondent does not appear to be in any way related to the Complainant's business, and is not the agents of the Complainant. The Respondent is not currently known and has never been known as “PALANTIRY”, or any combination of the complainant’s trademark.
Currently, the disputed domain name <PALANTIRY> does not appear to be associated with any webpage.
Therefore, the Respondent does not seem to have a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
In the absence of a Response, the Panel finds therefore that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, so that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy are met.
3. As to the bad faith at the time of the registration, the Panel finds that, in light of the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademarks which is derived form an internationally well-known movie but does not suggest the Complainant’s services or business activity, the Respondent was more likely be aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name.
Finally, despite of the Complainants contentions explained in the complaint, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name does not resolve to any website or other on-line presence.
In this regard, prior panels have discussed the passive holding of a domain names (e.g. in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003) and found that the passive holding itself can constitute bad faith use.
The Panel recalls that „the relevant issue is not whether the Respondent is undertaking a positive action in bad faith in relation to the domain name, but instead whether, in all the circumstances of the case, it can be said that the Respondent is acting in bad faith”. (see Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003).
The particular circumstances of this case, allow the Panel to infer that this is the case when the inactivity of the domain name holder could be considered as a bad faith use, given that:
(i) The Complainant’s business name and trademarks “PALANTIR” have a wide online presence (and appears as the only result in Google search when searching for “PALANTIR”);
(ii) The word element “PALANTIRY” represents almost identical version of the Complainants registered trademarks “PALANTIR” where the addition of the repetitive end letter “Y” at the end of the in the disputed domain name could be perceived as allusive to the Complainant’s trademarks;
(iii) the Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the disputed domain name.
Bearing in mind these circumstances, the Respondent can be deemed to have registered the disputed domain name to free ride on the Complainant’ goodwill. Under such circumstances, the Respondent’s activity is indicative of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
|