I. Confusing Similarity
The Panel agrees that the slight misspelling under the form BOURASAMA in the Complainant’s trademark BOURSORAMA is insufficient to avoid confusing similarity.
As a matter of fact, despite the slight misspelling, the Complainant’s trademark is still recognizable within the disputed domain name. Previous UDRP CAC and WIPO decisions have recognized that typosquatting usually entails a finding of confusing similarity for the purpose of the first element under the Policy.
Moreover, the extension “.com” is not to be taken into consideration when examining the similarity between the Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain name (WIPO Case No. D2005-0016, Accor v. Noldc Inc.). The mere adjunction of a gTLD such as “.com” is irrelevant as it is well established that the generic Top-Level Domain is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity (WIPO Case No. 2013-0820, L’Oréal v Tina Smith, WIPO Case No. D2008-0820 Titoni AG v Runxin Wang and WIPO Case No. D2009-0877, Alstom v. Itete Peru S.A.).
Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that the first condition under the Policy is met.
II. Lack of Respondent's 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 burden of proof shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such appropriate allegations or evidence, a complainant is generally deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP.
Based on the available evidence, the Respondent does not appear to be known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not a licensee of, nor has any kind of relationship with, the Complainant. The Complainant has never authorised the Respondent to make use of its trademark, nor of a confusingly similar trademark in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent is not affiliated with nor has been authorized by the Complainant in any way to register the disputed domain name. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.
Finally, the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the Complainant’s trademark, redirects to the Registrar’s page and is also used for what appears to be an attempt of scamming by reproducing the Registrant's official page. Such use does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services, or to a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Panel notes that the Respondent had an opportunity to comment on the Complaint’s allegations by filing a Response, which the Respondent failed to do.
Thus, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has at least established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel takes the view that also the second requirement under the Policy is met.
III. Bad Faith
The Complainant's trademark is a well-known one as recognized also by past panels and the disputed domain name is a typosquatting of the Complainant’s trademark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s trademark and has intentionally registered one of its possible misspellings.
Numerous UDRP Panels have found that typosquatting constitutes bad faith (see, amongst others, NAF case no. FA0612000877979, Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration Philippines; ARCELORMITTAL S.A. v. stave co ltd, CAC Case No. 102180; Calvin Klein Trademark Trust, Calvin Klein, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, WIPO Case No. D2015-2305; Wikimedia Foundation Inc v. Privacy Protect.org/Domain Tech Enterprises, WIPO Case No. D2015-1705; Moneyweek Limited v. he jianyi Case No. D2015-1700).
The disputed domain name appears to have been used for scamming in order to obtain the client’s access which is a bad faith practice as recognized by previous UDRP Panels as well.
In the present case, the following factors should be considered:
(i) the Complainant's trademark is a well-known one, being also highly distinctive;
(ii) the Respondent failed to submit any response and has not provided any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use of the disputed domain name;
(iii) the Respondent registered the disputed domain name containing an obvious, common and intentional misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark, which is a typical pattern used for abusive “typosquatting” registrations; and
(iv) any good faith use of the disputed domain name would be implausible, as the trademark BOURSORAMA is univocally linked to the Complainant and the Respondent has no business relationship with the Complainant, nor was ever authorised to use a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
In light of the foregoing, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and has been using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Thus, also the third and last condition under the Policy is satisfied.
|