Case number | CAC-UDRP-105031 |
---|---|
Time of filing | 2023-05-31 10:06:07 |
Domain names | manulifegroup.com |
Case administrator
Organization | Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin) |
---|
Complainant
Organization | The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company |
---|
Complainant representative
Organization | c/o Jonathan Matkowsky (Microsoft Corporation) |
---|
Respondent
Name | Tyler Kacsor |
---|
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.
- Canadian Reg. No. TMA385240, registered on May 31, 1991;
- United States Reg. No. 74094413, registered on August 31, 1993;
- European Reg. No. 000540989, registered on July 9, 1999;
- European Reg. No. 014106256, registered on October 30, 2015.
Serving tens of millions of customers with over a trillion U.S. dollars in assets under management and administration, Complainant's MANULIFE brand has received widespread media and industry recognition, including by Interbrand as one of the Best Canadian Brands. Manulife has been repeatedly ranked at the top spot among Canadian insurers on the Forbes list of the World's Best Employers.
Respondent created the disputed domain name at 2023-04-24T18:10:23Z according to the registrar's Whois verification response and the disputed domain name redirects Internet traffic to Complainant’s official website. Therefore, the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii). See Altavista Co. v. Brunosousa, WIPO Case D2002-0109 (holding that the respondent was attempting to build up “mistaken confidence” in the disputed domain name by having it resolve to the complainant’s official website and that “an unconnected party has no right or legitimate interest to use an otherwise deceptive trademark, name or indicia to redirect Internet traffic, even if it is directed to the legitimate owner of the trademark”).
The MANULIFE mark is recognizable with the disputed domain name, and the generic identifier word appended even relates explicitly to the Complainant's leading international financial services group covered by the MANULIFE registered mark. Therefore, Complainant satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy in establishing its rights in MANULIFE and demonstrating that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar per the Policy element. [§ 1.7. of WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0].
Specifically, the Complainant received a report that someone is masquerading as a Director of Global Procurement Strategy for Complainant using the e-mail "bowen.liu@manulifegroup.com" on the Disputed domain name).
- manulifegroup.com. 3600 IN MX 10 alt3.aspmx.l.google.com.
- manulifegroup.com. 3600 IN MX 10 alt4.aspmx.l.google.com.
- manulifegroup.com. 3600 IN MX 5 alt1.aspmx.l.google.com.
- manulifegroup.com. 3600 IN MX 5 alt2.aspmx.l.google.com.
- manulifegroup.com. 3600 IN MX 1 aspmx.l.google.com.
Any e-mails spoofing Complainant sent from the disputed domain name or replies to Respondent sent to the disputed domain name would likely be intended for Complainant. There is no legitimate interest in confusing people into mistakenly thinking they are communicating with Complainant through a mailbox under Respondent's control or management.
Accordingly, the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name under the second element of the Policy.
NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.
- The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
- The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
- The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
- Canadian Reg. No. TMA385240, registered on May 31, 1991;
- United States Reg. No. 74094413, registered on August 31, 1993;
- European Reg. No. 000540989, registered on July 9, 1999;
- European Reg. No. 014106256, registered on October 30, 2015.
The Panel therefore considers that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name <manulifegroup.com> within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
The Complainant has established the fact, that the disputed domain name creates direct association to the Complainant and is therefore capable of creating a likelihood of confusion of the internet users. The registration and usage of the disputed domain name could therefore potentially harm Complainant’s business. The e-mail presented by the Complainant proves that someone sent an e-mail from the e-mail address from the disputed domain name with a signature purporting to come from Complainant's Director of Global Procurement Strategy. Such use of the disputed domain name could be deemed to be a fraud activity violating the Complainant and its customers as well as demonstrate a lack of good faith in the registration and use of the disputed domain names.
Considering the confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name, long time between the registration of the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name, unsolicited redirection of the internet users to Complainant’s website from the disputed domain name, distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark, attempt to use the disputed domain name in the fraudulent activities and failure to submit a response in the UDRP proceedings and to provide any evidence of good faith use, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
- manulifegroup.com: Transferred
PANELLISTS
Name | Petr Hostaš |
---|