Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-106430

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

The disputed domain name is composed by the elements "appbforbk". 

The Panel finds that the trademark “BFORBANK” is fully recognizable in the disputed domain name and that the deletion of the letters "AN" has no significant impact in the confusing similarity assessment.

Moreover, in the Panel's view, the addition of the descriptive element "APP" increases the likelihood of confusion/association with the Complainant since the relevant public may perceive the disputed domain name as BFORBANK's web application.

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 “.com” is generally disregarded 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. 

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 name 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 name nor the Complainant has authorized the Respondent to use and register the disputed domain name. As a matter of fact the WHOIS information about the Respondent does not, apparently, provide any justification for the registration of <bforbk.com>.

Moreover the disputed domain name is not used. Therefore, in the Panel's view, it is not used in a legitimate noncommercial or fair use nor in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services for the purposes of the UDRP Policy.

3. The disputed domain name has been registered and is 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 name:

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

(ii) the combination between BFORBK (very similar to BFORBANK) with APP suggests that the disputed domain name was registered with full knowledge of the BFORBANK trademark and business.  

Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page. Given the reputation of the BFORBANK trademark and the similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trademark, the Panel agrees that it is hardly conceivable any plausible active use of <app-bforbk.com> that would not infringe the Complainant's rights on BFORBANK. 

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.