In the opinion of the Panel the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark pursuant to paragraph 4 (a)(1) of the Policy. Many UDRP decisions have found that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the disputed domain name incorporates the complainant’s trademark or the principal part thereof in its entirety. Complainant has established that it is the owner of trademark registrations for AIRBNB. The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the well-known AIRBNB trademark as its distinctive element. The obvious misspelling in the disputed domain name, also referred to as typosquatting, is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity as the AIRBNB trademark remains the dominant component of the disputed domain name.
The Panel notes that Complainant’s registration of its trademarks predates the creation date of the disputed domain name.
In the opinion of the Panel Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its trademarks or to register the disputed domain name incorporating its marks. Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademarks of Complainant. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has it acquired trademark rights. Complainant has no relationship with Respondent.
Respondent did not submit any response. Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(11) of the Policy.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Complainant has rights in the AIRBNB trademarks. Respondent knew or should have known that the disputed domain name included Complainant’s well-known marks. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name was being used for phishing purposes. The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s well-known trademarks in its entirety with a minor misspelling (also referred to as typosquatting), which indicates, in the circumstances of this case, that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name with the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the trademarks of Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a service on its website or location, which constitutes registration and use in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
|