In order to prevail in its Complaint, the Complainant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that it has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights in the CCLEANER trademark by virtue of its registration and use, as set out in the rights and factual background sections above.
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s CCLEANER trademark, together with the term “crack” as a suffix, under the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.info”.
The Panel finds that the Complainant’s CCLEANER trademark is easily recognizable in the disputed domain name as its leading element. The addition of the term “crack” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark; see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8.
The addition of the gTLD “.info” is disregarded for the purposes of comparison under the first element, as it is a technical requirement of registration; see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.
The Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CCLEANER trademark. The Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has submitted evidence in the form of screen captures of the Respondent’s website indicating that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a website that purports to offer unauthorized versions of the Complainant’s CCleaner software, license keys for the Complainant’s software, and information about products in direct competition with those of the Complainant.
Prior UDRP panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods, unauthorized account access, passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent; see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.
In the present case, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name, as described above, falls within such categories of behavior as those described in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13. Notably, the Respondent purports to provide what are either pirated or counterfeit versions of the Complainant’s software, as well as making available license keys for the Complainant’s software, in violation of the terms of the Complainant’s End User License Agreement. Evidently, such use of the disputed domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.
There is also no evidence to suggest that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, nor does the Panel consider that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.
The Respondent has not come forward with any evidence to rebut the Complainant’s allegations or evidence.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Panel notes that the Complainant’s CCleaner software was developed some 15 years prior to the registration of the disputed domain name, and has since then become widely used by PC users throughout the world. The Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant, its CCleaner software, and the Complainant’s rights in the CCLEANER trademark can by readily inferred from the contents of the Respondent’s website. The Panel further notes that the Respondent has made use of the disputed domain name to offer either pirated or counterfeit versions of the Complainant’s software, together with license keys for use in connection with the Complainant’s software, without authorization to do so from the Complainant.
Notwithstanding that the products made available on the Respondent’s website are free, in the circumstances the Panel finds the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to be disruptive to the commercial activities of the Complainant. In fact, the products purportedly offered via the Respondent’s website are not regulated by the Complainant for quality, and may place the security of users at risk. Prior UDRP panels have consistently held that given that the use of a domain name for per se illegitimate activity such as the sale of counterfeit goods can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent, such behavior is manifestly considered evidence of bad faith; see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4.
For the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
|