1. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has shown it owns rights in the "ENI" trademark since at least 2013 through various trademark registrations.
The Panel now analyzes the potential confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the trademark. As per the evidence on record, both disputed domain names reproduce the trademark in its entirety, namely, "EMI". Therefore, the Panel will now address each disputed domain name individually. The first disputed domain name, namely <MULTICARDENI.COM>, contains the term “multicard” immediately followed by the reproduction of the trademark “ENI”. The second disputed domain name, namely <ENIMULTICARD.COM>, reproduces the trademark "ENI", immediately followed by the term "multicard".
In both instances, the addition of the term "multicard" is immaterial and therefore not substantive enough to dispel the confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the Complainant's trademarks. Furthermore, this addition may enhance the confusing similarity with the Complainant's trademarks, as the terms appear to refer to services provided by the Complainant. However, further analysis will be discussed under the following elements.
Based on this, the Panel finds the disputed domain names confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks. As a result, the Panel determines that the Complaint has satisfied the first element under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
2. Rights or Legitimate Interests
For the second element under the Policy, the Complainant argues that the Respondent is not commonly known as the disputed domain names and has no trademark registration. Additionally, the Complainant contends that no evidence would suggest efforts in using the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering, notwithstanding the reasonably recent registration of the disputed domain names. Furthermore, the Complainant claims it has not granted authorization, license, or any rights to the Complaint regarding using the trademark and/or the disputed domain names. Finally, the Respondent did not respond to the cease-and-desist letter dated February 10, 2022.
In the Panel's view, these assertions and the evidence attached to them are enough to establish a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names (see 2.1 of WIPO 3.0 Overview).
Additionally, based on the evidence on record, the disputed domain names are not actively used as they redirect to what appears to be domain name parking pages. Furthermore, there is no evidence suggesting that Respondent has demonstrable plans to use the disputed domain names in a bona fide manner. Past panels have held that the lack of use of a domain name is considered an essential indicator of the absence of legitimate interests by the Respondent. In this case, in particular, the Respondent's reproduction of the trademark with terms commonly associated with services provided by the Complainant appears to fall under an attempt for commercial gain to divert consumers misleadingly or tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue; further analysis will be discussed under the last element. However, for the purposes of this element, this cannot be considered to confer rights or legitimate interests to the Respondent.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Therefore, the Complainant has fulfilled the second requirement set under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
3. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds, as per the evidence on record, that the Respondent was likely aware of the Complainant and targeted the Complainant's trademark when registering the disputed domain names. This conclusion is reinforced by the reproduction of the Complainant’s trademark and the term “multicard”, which appear to refer to services extensively promoted by the Complainant; in an apparent effort to misleadingly divert consumers and obtain a financial gain.
Without having any other explanation from the Respondent, on the balance of probability, and in conjunction with the other facts and evidence in this case, the Panel concludes that the most likely intention of the Respondent about the disputed domain names was to intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website/disputed domain names, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website and/or disputed domain names (see paragraph 3.1 of WIPO 3.0 Overview).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements set forth under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
4. Decision
For the preceding reasons and in conformity with the provisions contained under Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and Paragraph 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders the transfer of the disputed domain names to the Complainant.
|