1. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights over the trademark LOVEHONEY based on the trademark registrations cited above and the related trademark certificates submitted as annex to the Complaint.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark LOVEHONEY as it reproduces the trademark in its entirety with the mere addition of the generic Top Level Domain “.group”.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has established rights according to 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.
The Panel acknowledges that the Respondent is in no way related to the Complainant, has never been licensed in any way by the Complainant and has not been granted any authorization to use the Complainant’s trademarks.
Based on the records submitted to the Panel, there is no evidence that the Respondent, identified as Amanda Lee in the Registrar’s Whois records, might be commonly known by the disputed domain name.
The Panel further finds that the Respondent, by redirecting the disputed domain name to a parking page offering the disputed domain name on sale and having in the past used the same to redirect users to a website with pay-per-click links, has not made a bona fide offering of goods of services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the disputed domain name, being identical to the Complainant’s trademark, carries a high risk of implied affiliation.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name according to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
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 LOVEHONEY in connection with the promotion and sale of the Complainant’s products online, including via the Complainant’s main website “www.lovehoney.com”, and considering that a simple online search on main search engines would have revealed the existence of the Complainant and its identical trademark LOVEHONEY, the Respondent was or could have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark when it registered the identical domain name <lovehoney.group>.
The Panel further notes that, since the disputed domain name, considering also the generic Top Level Domain “group”, is identical to the Complainant’s company name, the Respondent likely registered the disputed domain name having the Complainant in mind.
In view of the Respondent’s prior use of the disputed domain name in connection with a parking page with pay-per-click links, the Panel finds that, on balance of probabilities, the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website, according to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The Panel also finds that the current redirection of the disputed domain name to a webpage where it is offered for sale, the Respondent’s failure to reply to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter and its use of a privacy service to conceal its identity in the public Whois records are further circumstances evidencing the Respondent’s bad faith.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has also proven that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith according to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
|