The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant is the owner of a number of registered trade mark rights for the term MOONEY.
In order to satisfy the first element of the Policy it is usually sufficient for a complainant to show that the relevant mark is “recognizable within the disputed domain name”; see section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (the "WIPO Overview 3.0"). The Domain Name takes the form “mooney" in combination with the “.finance” new generic Top-Level Domain ("new gTLD") . The mark relied upon by the Complainant is, therefore, clearly recognisable in the Domain Name.
The Complainant has, therefore, satisfied the Panel that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to trade marks in which it has rights and has thereby made out the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
The Panel also accepts the Complainant's contention that it is more likely than not that the Domain Name was registered with knowledge of, and with the intention of taking some form of advantage of the Complainant's mark. The reasons for this are as follows:
(i) The Complainant has satisfied the Panel that its "Mooney" branded business is a substantial one, which has operated for a number of years in the financial services sector. The primary focus of the Complainant's business under that name appears to be Italy, but the Complainant asserts (and it is not disputed) that the reputation of its mark extends to elsewhere in the world;
(ii) The Domain Name incorporates the ".finance" new gTLD and thereby inherently signals, and would be known by any registrant to signal, to internet users some connection with the financial services industry; and
(iii) It would appear from a screenshot provided by the Complainant of the website operating from the Domain Name, that this website has been used to promote some form of financial services business related to "Yield Farming" or "NFTs".
The Panel is not persuaded by the Complainant's claim that the website operating from the Domain Name resembles the website of the Complainant. They appear to be very different in style. Indeed, one reading of the text and imagery on the website operating from the Domain Name is that it involves a series of puns based on the words "moon", "money" and "moony" or "moonie", and it may be that there is no real or series business actually being promoted from that site.
Nevertheless, in circumstances where the Complainant has put forward a credible prima facie case that (regardless of whether the Respondent's website relates to a real or serious business) the Respondent is likely to have been aware of the Complainant and the date the Domain Name was registered, and that the Domain Name is intended to take advantage of the reputation of the Complainant's mark in the financial services sector, the Panel accepts on the balance of probabilities that the Complainant's contentions in this respect are correct. This is particularly so where claims to this effect have been advanced not just in this Complaint but in a cease-and-desist letter prior to the Complaint, and the Respondent has not sought to dispute the same.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent seeks to take advantage of confusion arising between the Domain Name and the Complainant's mark for financial gain, which falls within the scope of the example of circumstances indicating bad faith set out in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. That might well be correct, but even if the Respondent's use of the Domain Name does not strictly fall within the scope of paragraph 4(b)(iv), the Panel is persuaded on the evidence before it and in the absence of any contrary explanation or evidence from the Respondent, that some form of unfair advantage was and is intended. That is sufficient for a finding of bad faith registration and use (see section 3.1 of the WIPO Overview).
There is also no right or legitimate interest in holding a domain name for such a purpose and such a finding also provides positive evidence that no such right or interest exists (see section 2.15 of the WIPO Overview).
A further factor here is that the Domain Name takes the form <[trade mark].[gTLD]> where there is nothing in the Domain Name that immediately signals to the internet user a lack of connection with the trade mark owner. The Domain Name thereby inherently impersonates the Complainant (see section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview).
The Complainant has, therefore, also made out the requirements of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy.
|