THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO THE COMPLAINANT`S TRADEMARK
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks "HID GLOBAL", "HID" and to the relative domain names registered by the Complainant, which has proven to have earlier rights.
In particular, the Panel agrees that the mere inversion of letters "L" and "O" is not sufficient at all to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark "HID GLOBAL". On the contrary, the obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark "HID GOLBAL" instead of "HID GLOBAL" is a clear evidence of "typosquatting“.
Many WIPO and CAC decisions – also involving the present Complainant – confirmed that the slight spelling variations do not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark. They do not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and domain names associated.
There is no doubt that the same case lies before us in this matter.
THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
According to the information provided by the Complainant, the Respondent is not affiliated nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. Likewise, the Complainant neither licensed nor authorized the Respondent to make any use of its trademarks "HID GLOBAL" and "HID", or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name on behalf of the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.
It is undeniable that Complainant is only required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Once such prima facie case is made, Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy.
Given all the above and taken into account the fact that the Respondent did not provide any response within the present proceeding, the Panel accepts the contentions of the Complainant that the Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in <hidgolbal.com>.
THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME HAS BEEN REGISTERED AND IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH
The Panel finds that the Complainant successfully submitted prima facie evidence that the Respondent has made no use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, neither of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. This prima facie evidence was not challenged by the Respondent.
The disputed domain name was used for sending email messages to third parties with the Complainant's mark in the footer, which is a clear attempt to impersonate ASSA ABLOY AB.
As indicated by both consistent case-law and the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, panelists have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (including phishing) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent.
In the absence of a response from Linda Bonds and given (i) the reputation of the Complainant and its trademarks and (ii) the phishing cases already faced by ASSA ABLOY AB similar to the present one, the Panel infers that the Respondent had the Complainant's trademarks "HID GLOBAL" in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Consequently, the Panel believes that the same was registered and is being used in bad faith.
|