Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-106803

The Complainant agrees that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MUSTIJAMIRRI trademarks. According to a consolidated case law if the trademark is entirely comprised in the disputed domain name, the threshold requested by the First element of the Policy is met.

In the Panel's view the addition of the geographical term "FI" (abbreviation for Finland) increases rather than excludes the risk of confusion for the public as it could be associated to the local branch or distributor of the Complainant. It is significant that the Complainant is based in Finland. 

Furthermore, the addition of the ".com" gTLD is generally disregarded for assessing confusing similarity 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.

The Respondent has not submitted a response to the Complaint. Therefore, it has filed no information on possible rights or legitimate interests it might hold on <mustijamirrifi.com>. On its part, the Complainant has submitted information and arguments which, according to the Panel, are sufficient to conclude that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

According to the information provided by the Complainant, and not contested, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor it has been authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark.

The Panel agrees that the use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods and services nor to a legitimate non-commercial use for the purpose of the Policy. The Complainant proved that the disputed domain name redirected to a website that could be perceived as part of the Complainant's official network since it contains the Complainant's figurative and verbal trademarks and images of the Complainant's products.

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

3. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Respondent was clearly aware that the Complainant conducted its business under the MUSTIJAMIRRI trademark as:

i) the disputed domain name was registered well after the Complainant's trademark registrations;

ii) the disputed domain name redirected to a website which offered for sale MUSTIJAMIRRI products and contained images of the MUSTIJAMIRRI figurative trademark and products;

iii) the disputed domain name combines the trademark MUSTIJAMIRRI and the geographic term FI (for Finland where the Complainant is based); this suggests that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's trademark and business prior the registration of the disputed domain name.

Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.

As regards the use in bad faith, the Panel agrees that <mustijamirrifi.com> is used in a way that could create a risk of confusion with the Complainant's business. As a matter of fact, the disputed domain name operates a website that promotes the sale of products using the Complainant’s verbal and figurative trade mark. In addition, the layout as well as pictures appear to have been copied from the Complainant’s website. The Panel agrees that the website to which <mustijamirrifi.com> redirects could mislead the internet users into thinking that it is, in some way or another, connected to, sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant and its business.

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.