Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-105518

The Complainant has successfully proved to be the owner of the trademark BFORBANK and of the domain name <bforbank.com>. 

The disputed domain names are composed by the elements "bforhank" and "bfordank". 

The Panel finds that the trademark “BFORBANK” is fully recognizable in the disputed domain names and that the substitution of the letters "h" (in bforhank) and "d" (in bfordank) with the letter "b" (of bforbank) have no significant impact in the confusing similarity assessment.

According to a consolidated case law in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in it, the confusing similarity threshold is met.

Furthermore, the addition of “.top” is generally disregarded in view of its technical function.

As a consequence, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are 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 names. 

Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Once such a prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of demonstrating its rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

In this case, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s submitted evidence and allegations are sufficient to establish a prima facie case of Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names also in the view of the fact that the Respondent did not reply to the complaint. 

On the basis of the information submitted by the Complainant and not contested by the Respondent, the Panel agrees that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names nor the Complainant has authorized the Respondent to use and register the disputed domain names. 

The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the use of the disputed domain names does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods / services nor a legitimate / fair use of a domain name. In particular the Complainant proved that one of the disputed domain names (<bfordank.top>) linked to a website which is a copy of its own website.

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

3. The disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. 

The Panel finds the following circumstances as material in order to establish the Respondent's bad faith in the registration of the disputed domain names:

(i) the disputed domain names were registered well after the Complainant acquired rights on the trademark BFORBANK;

(ii) the disputed domain names are a clear and obvious misspelling of the Complainant's trademark (i.e. typo squatting). Previous panels found that typo squatting discloses an intention on the part of the respondent to confuse users seeking or expecting to find a website related to the Complainant.

Furthermore, the Panel agrees that the disputed domain names are used in bad faith. In particular, the disputed domain name <bfordank.top> resolved to a website which is a copy of the Complainant's website. Thus, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his websites (par. 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). Moreover, this domain name could be used by the Respondent to collect personal information about the Complainant's potential clients. This could be very dangerous as the Complainant is a bank.

Moreover, the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark which makes it very improbable that the disputed domain names could be used in good faith.

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