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 mark "METACAM" (or its transliteration) which were registered long before the registration of the disputed domain name 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 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.
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark "METACAM" in its entirety. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar 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 name.
In particular, the Respondent is not in any way connected with the Complainant nor is it authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark for its commercial activities. In addition, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. Furthermore, it was demonstrated by evidence submitted by the Complainant that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links and consequently has not been used for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use.
The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
C. Registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith
With respect to the bad faith argument, the Panel has already found that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark "METACAM". 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 believes that the Complainant made good arguments and submitted evidence that sufficiently demonstrate the Respondent must have (or should have) been aware of the existence of the Complainant, its trademarks and domain names, as well as its METACAM branded product. It is indeed unlikely 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 name by the Respondent.
Furthermore, typical circumstances demonstrating respondent's bad faith include a situation where the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the respondent's website or location (see Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). The fact that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links is a clear and rather typical sign of such bad faith behaviour.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and 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.
|