Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-106631

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).

According to the WIPO case No. D2003-0455, Croatia Airlines d. d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., the complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of demonstrating 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.

Given what stated by the Complainant and without any response from the Respondent, the Panel infers that there is no indication that the disputed domain name was intended to be used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as required by Policy.

The evidentiary burden shifts to the Respondent to show by concrete evidence that it does have rights or legitimate interests in that name. However, the Respondent failed to provide any information and evidence that it has relevant rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy).

The Panel thus finds that Complainant has proven the second element of the Policy.

***

The Panel finds that the Complainant successfully submitted prima facie evidence that the Respondent has made no use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, neither of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

Here, Complainant has specifically argued that bad faith exists pursuant to, inter alia, paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy because the website associated with the disputed domain name resolves to a website offering the very same services of the Complainant ‘ones and there are some suspicious circumstances, including among others:

• the timing of the disputed domain name registration, well after the PAYSEND trademark has been registered and is used in many Countries;

• the use of false contact details on the website connected to the disputed domain name.

In addition to the above, the Panel notes that (i) the above website sponsors an app called SMARTPAYSEND, but when redirecting to the page https://smartpaysend.com/downloads/ it will be easily noted that the app does have a completely different name and that (ii) the Respondent left a link to TrustPilot.com for reviewing such app, but when redirected toward such website a further different name appears (https://www.trustpilot.com/review/www.placid.net?utm_medium=trustbox&utm_source=Carousel). 

As indicated in the decision for CAC Case No. 104089 involving the Complainant, "Given the use to which the Respondent put the disputed domain name following registration, as described above, it is highly improbable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without an awareness of the Complainant and its trade mark rights ... it is rather obvious to the Panel that the Respondent by using the disputed domain name, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark".

The Respondent has failed to demonstrate any activity in respect of the disputed domain name and decided not to reply to the Complaint: with no Response and taking into account the reputation of the Complainant supported by the Complainant’s evidence, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

The Complainant has therefore also satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.