1. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark ESSAYSHARK as it reproduces the trademark in its entirety with the mere addition of the country-code Top Level Domain “.ws”, which can be disregarded for the purpose of assessing identity or confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
2. With reference to the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case and that the Respondent, by failing to submit a Response, has failed to provide any element from which a Respondent’s right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name could be inferred.
Indeed, the Complainant stated that the Respondent is not related in any way with the Complainant, that the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.
In addition, there is no evidence that the Respondent, whose name is Yining Gao according to the Whois records, might be commonly known by the disputed domain name.
The Panel also finds that the Respondent, by redirecting the disputed domain name to the website described above, offering the same type of services as the Complainant and reproducing the Complainant’s trademark and content taken from the Complainant’s official website, is not making a bona fide offering of goods of services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
3. As to bad faith at the time of the registration, the Panel finds that, in light of the prior registration and use of the trademark ESSAYSHARK by the Complainant in connection with its writing services and considering the identity of the disputed domain name with such trademark, the Respondent was more likely than not aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration.
In view of the use of the disputed domain name made by the Respondent, to redirect users to a website offering the same kind of services as the Complainant whilst reproducing the Complainant’s trademark and content taken from the Complainant’s website, the Panel finds that the Respondent was indeed well aware of the Complainant’s trademark and registered the disputed domain name with such trademark in mind.
The Panel finds that the Respondent, by redirecting the disputed domain name to the website described above, has intentionally attempted to attract internet users to its website for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website and services, according to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The Panel also finds that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name shows the Respondent’s intent to disrupt the Complainant’s business according to paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy.
As additional circumstances evidencing the Respondent’s bad faith, it has failed to reply to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter and to file a Response to rebut the Complainant’s contentions.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
|