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 name should be transferred or revoked:
(i) the disputed domain name is 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 name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is 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 disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademarks. As the Complainant correctly pointed out, mere omission of the letter "r" in the disputed domain name is not sufficient to exclude the likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s Trademarks. It is an obvious, and in the opinion of the Panel also deliberate misspelling of Complainant’s Trademarks and thus a clear case of typosquatting.
For sake of completeness, the Panel asserts that the top-level suffix in the domain name (i.e. the ".com") 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.).
The disputed domain name points to an inactive website with a parking page and commercial links. As asserted by the Complainant (and unchallenged by the Respondent), the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. 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 name (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 name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).
BAD FAITH
The disputed domain name points to an inactive website with parking page and commercial links (pay-per-click). The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent attempted to attract internet users by registering disputed domain name with a spelling error and thus deliberately created a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Trademark. Such practice is a clear example of typosquatting and thus bad faith of the Respondent in registration and use of the disputed domain name. Also, the disputed domain name appears to be for sale as "premium domain name" for costs exceeding the costs of registration. The Respondent also has been involved in numerous other domain names disputes and therefore it is clear that the Respondent regularly engages in cybersquatting conduct.
As a result, the Panel found that the disputed domain name has been registered and used by the Respondent in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
|