This is a 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: (A) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (B) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; (C) 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 international trademark registration for the word mark "EXPANSCIENCE", which was registered very 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 .com 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.
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark "EXPANSCIENCE" in its entirety. The additional letter "S" is clearly not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Adding the letter "S" is a typical way of creating a plural form of a noun in both English and French, and it is perfectly plausible that the registering of the disputed domain name, being merely a spelling variation of the Complainant’s trademark, can be considered typosquatting, as the Complainant suggests.
In any event, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly (and highly) 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 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 Complainant states, in summary: (a) that the disputed domain is confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known trademark; (b) that the Respondent must have had actual knowledge of the Complainant's rights in its trademark; (c) that the disputed domain name resolve to an inactive page; and (d) that the disputed domain name was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark (typosquatting).
The Panel has already found that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark "EXPANSCIENCE". Given the long-term existence and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark at least on the territory of France where the Respondent is also based, the Panel believes that the Respondent must have (and easily could have) been aware of the existence of the Complainant, its trademark and its domain name.
Furthermore, typical circumstances demonstrating a 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 has been 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.
|