Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-105199

The Complainant agrees that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the UNIFLAIR trademarks and domain names. According to a consolidated case law if the trademark is entirely comprised in the disputed domain name, the threshold requested by the First element of the Policy is met.

In the Panel's view the addition of the geographical term "cn" increases rather than excludes the risk of confusion for the public as it could be easily associated to the local branch of the Complainant.

Furthermore, the addition of the ".com" gTLD is generally disregarded for assessing confusing similarity in view of its technical function.

As a consequence, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, for the purposes of the First Element of the Policy.

2. The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Respondent has not submitted a response to the Complaint. Therefore, it has filed no information on possible rights or legitimate interests it might hold on <uniflaircn.com>. On its part, the Complainant has submitted information and arguments which, according to the Panel, are sufficient to conclude that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

According to the information provided by the Complainant, and not contested, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor he has been authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel agrees that the Whois information related to the Respondent do not confer to the latter any right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

The Panel agrees that the use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods and services nor to a legitimate non-commercial use for the purpose of the Policy. The Complainant proved that the disputed domain name redirects to a website publishing pornographic contents and links. Previous panels confirmed that such use tarnishes the complainant's trademark and does not prove a non-commercial or fair use of a domain name by the respondent. 

For these reasons, the Panel takes the view that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for the purposes of the Policy.

3. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In the Panel's view, the Respondent was clearly aware that the Complainant conducted its business under the MARSHALL trademark as:

i) the disputed domain name was registered well after the Complainant's trademark registrations which are valid and effective also in China where the Respondent is based;

ii) the trademark UNIFLAIR is a made-up word with no dictionary meaning. The Complainant proved that google searches on UNIFLAIR disclose results related to the Complainant;

iii) the combination of UNIFLAIR and CN increases the risk of association with the Complainant as CN could be easily associated to China. As a consequence, the disputed domain name could be perceived as the Complainant's local website.

Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.

As regards the use in bad faith, the Panel agrees that <uniflaircn.com> is used in a way that could tarnish and, in any case, negatively affect the reputation of the Complainant's business and trademarks. As a matter of fact, pornographic content and links have been considered by previous panels as indexes of use in bad faith.

All above considered the Panel finds the evidence submitted as sufficient to prove use and registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name for the purposes of the Policy.