Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-106666

(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 respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

1) The Complainant has demonstrated its rights in its registered trademarks G7 and TAXIS G7. The Complainant has also registered the domain name <taxis-g7.com> among others. The disputed domain name <g7taxiclick.com> incorporates the Complainant established trademarks in its entirety (G7) or almost in its entirety (TAXIS G7) and adds the term CLICK. Concerning the addition of the term "click", the Panel disagree with the Respondent's view that said addition creates a unique domain name different from the Complainant existing trademarks. Actually, the Panel agrees with the Complainant that the use of its marks with a generic word does not reduce confusing similarity. In the present case the word CLICK in the disputed domain name, along with G7 TAXI, appears to be intentionally chosen and used by the Respondent to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant´s trademarks and business. Given the fame of the Complainant’s mark, the Panel finds the addition of the word CLICK does not distinguish the Respondent’s disputed domain name from the Complainant´s marks. Panels in previous cases have held that the word “CLICK(S)” does not by itself distinguish the disputed domain name in dispute from the Complainant’s mark (See for instance, Corbis Corporation v. RegisterFly.com/Whois Protection Service/surf advertising company/ Joseph, Graham, WIPO Case No. D2006-0546 regarding <corbisclicks.com> and Artisticas Ltda.v. BlessHost Internet, WIPO Case No. D2007-0979 concerning the domain name <clickxuxa.com>). Finally, in accordance with the consensus view of past UDRP panels, the Panel finds that the Top-Level domain (".COM" in this case) is not sufficient to exclude the likelihood of confusion since it is a mere technical requirement included in all domain names. The Complainant therefore succeeds on the first element of the Policy.

2) The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name <g7taxiclick.com> and that the Respondent is not related in any way with the Complainant.  Furthermore, the Complainant informs that it does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent and that neither license nor authorization has been granted by the Complainant to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant trademarks, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.  In addition, the Panel has duly noted that the domain name in dispute points to a website offering online taxi services.  The Panel disagrees with the Respondent's view that the Respondent's online taxi service is different from the Complainant's traditional and digital taxi service since the online taxi service is a physiological evolution of the traditional taxi service and it is simply a different way to offer an identical service.  Therefore, the Panel's view is that the Respondent is using the domain name in dispute to offer services of a Complainant’s competitor. Now, the use of a disputed domain name to offer competing goods or services may not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services nor as a legitimate non-commercial or fair use under Policy (See G7 v. Amin Guefa, CAC Case no. 105600). On the basis of the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant therefore succeeds on the second element of the Policy.

 3) Bad faith registration can be found where a respondent “knew or should have known” of a complainant’s trademark rights and nevertheless registered a domain name in which it had no right or legitimate interest (See Accor v. Kristen Hoerl, WIPO Case No. D2007-1722). As detailed above, the Respondent registered the domain name <g7taxiclick.com> which is confusingly similar to the Complainant´s distinctive marks. In the Panel's view there is no explanation for the Respondent to have chosen to register the domain name in dispute other than to intentionally trade off the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant trademarks or otherwise create a false association with the Complainant.  Actually, contrary to the Respondent assertions, the Panel is convinced that the addition of the term CLICK does not show the absence of bad faith since, on the contrary, the insertion of the G7 element in the disputed domain name inevitably indicates the Respondent's intention of creating a false association with the Complainant.  Therefore, as to the registration of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the reputation of the Complainant's trademark is such that, in the Panel's view, the Respondent could not ignore the Complainant trademarks at the time of the registration of <g7taxiclick.com>. It is therefore obvious that the Respondent selected the disputed domain name to create confusion with the Complainant´s business. It is the Panel's view that the Respondent was in bad faith when it decided to register the domain name in dispute since said registration was done having perfectly in mind the Complainant trademark and the Complainant's business activity.  In addition, the Respondent registered the domain name in dispute and linked it to a website offering services in competition with the Complainant. This, obviously amounts to bad faith use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent. (See Identigene, Inc. v. Genetest Labs, WIPO Case No. D2000-1100 and MathForum.com, LLC v. Weiguang Huang, WIPO Case No. D2000-0743). Finally, the Panel has verified that the Respondent has set up “MX-records” for the disputed domain name. This entails that the Respondent can send e-mails through the e-mail address “@g7taxiclick.com”. The Respondent can therefore use the disputed domain name to send fraudulent e-mails such as messages containing spam and/or phishing attempts that Internet users could well assume were sent by the Complainant (See Conféderation Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, Crédit Industriel et Commercial v. Khodor Dimassi, WIPO Case No. D2016-1980 and Paris Saint-Germain Football v. MHP Private, WIPO Case No. D2019-0036). In consideration of the above, the Panel deems that the domain name in dispute was registered and used in bad faith and, accordingly, that the Complainant has satisfied also the third element of the Policy.