1. The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark SOFTBANK. The adding of "intl” or "la" (abbreviations of generic indications "international" and "Latin America") in the end of the word mark "SoftBank" is related to the Complainant's banking activities and, being combined with the Complainant's well known trademark SOFTBANK, does not set aside the confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the Complainant's trademark.
2. The Panel acknowledges that the Complainant presented prima facie evidence that the Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant in any way. Furthermore, Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or permitted Respondent to use Complainant’s trademarks in any manner, including in domain names. The Respondent's name “Fred Shile” does not resemble the disputed domain names in any manner. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use.
3. As no administratively compliant response has been provided to the Panel and the prima facie evidence was not challenged by the Respondent, the Panel concludes that the Respondent meant Complainant's trademark SOFTBANK when he registered the disputed domain names. The evidence in this case show that Respondent is using the disputed domain names to confuse unsuspecting internet users looking for Complainant’s services, and to mislead internet users as to the source of the domain name and website. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith.
4. Previous panels have concluded that evidence of prior Panel decisions in which domain names have been transferred away from the Respondent to complaining parties supports a finding that Respondent has engaged in a bad faith pattern of “cybersquatting” (eg. Arai Helmet Americas, Inc. v. Goldmark, D2004-1028 (WIPO January 22, 2005). The Respondent "Fred Shile" has previously been identified in two cases, which involved infringing domains being used for phishing purposes: (1) Kaszek Management SA v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Fred Shile, D2021-1515 (WIPO, July 8, 2021); (2) Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Fred Shile, D2021-1359 (WIPO, June 25, 2021). This is per se evidence of the pattern of cybersquatting in which Respondent is engaging.
5. As the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names for the purposes of launching phishing attack, the Panel concludes this as the clear evidence of bad faith registration and use. After first creating a strong likelihood of confusion by misappropriating the Complainant’s trademarks in the disputed domain names, Respondent has sent e-mails to Complainant’s clients, in which it purports to impersonate Complainant’s CEO and President. Respondent’s efforts to present himself as the Complainant in an attempt to solicit sensitive, financial information from unsuspecting people certainly constitute fraud, which must be considered bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names (see WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at 3.1.4).
|