RIGHTS
Since the domain name and the Complainant’s trademark are not identical, the key element investigated and considered by the Panel is whether the disputed domain name consisting of a term “BOURASORAMA.COM” is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
The disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark are very similar since they differ only in addition of an extra letter "A".
This cannot prevent the association in the eyes of internet consumers between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks and thus the likelihood of confusion still exists. A misspelled non-distinctive term “writings” cannot sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark.
For sake of completeness, the Panel asserts that the top-level suffix in the domain name (i.e. the “.com”) must be disregarded under the identity and confusing similarity tests, as it is a necessary technical requirement of registration.
Therefore, the Panel has decided that there is identity in this case, it also concludes that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS
The Complainant’s assertions that the Respondent is not commonly known by either disputed domain name and is not affiliated with nor authorised by the Complainant are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name on the part of the Respondent.
Therefore, in the absence of the Respondent's response, the Panel concludes that there is no indication that the domain name was intended to be used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as required by UDRP.
Consequently, the evidentiary burden shifts to the Respondent to show by concrete evidence that it does have rights or legitimate interests in that names. However, the Respondent failed to provide any information and evidence that it has relevant rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) (ii) of Policy).
BAD FAITH
It is clear that by adding an extra letter “A” word element of Complainant's Trademark while all other characters of disputed domain name are identical to the Complainant trademark, it was Respondent’s intention to target Internet users who incorrectly type a website address into their web browser, an illicit activity recognised as „typosquatting“. There are several different reasons for typosquatting, as for example:
- to try to sell the disputed domain back to the Complainant;
- to monetize the disputed domain through advertising revenues from direct navigation misspellings of the intended domain;
- to redirect the typo-traffic to Complainant’s competitor;
- as a phishing scheme to mimic the Complainant’s site, while intercepting passwords or other information which the visitor enters unsuspectingly;
- To install drive-by malware or revenue generating adware onto the visitors' devices;
- To harvest misaddressed e-mail messages mistakenly sent to the typo domain.
All of the activities above are considered as malicious activities.
For the reasons described above, since (i) there is only a remote chance that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name just by a chance and without having a knowledge about the existence of the Complainant’s rights and business (ii) there is no legitimate use of the dispute domain name and (iii) the Respondent is engaged in typosquatting, the Panel contends, on the balance of probabilities, that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.
Thus, the Panel has taken a view that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
|