Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-107484

The Complainant has successfully proved to be the owner of the trademark SODAMCO.

The disputed domain name is <sodamco.com>.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the prior trademark SODAMCO. 

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 gTLD is generally disregarded in view of its technical function.

As a consequence, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark, 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, the Panel agrees that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has the Complainant authorized the Respondent to use and register the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that the lack of use of the disputed domain name confirms the absence of a bona fide offering of goods / services or a legitimate / fair use of <sodamco.com>. 

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 was registered and is 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 SODAMCO; 

(ii) SODAMCO is a distinctive trademark and a made-up word; thus, it is hard to see how the Respondent could use the disputed domain name in a way that it would not infringe the Complainant’s trademark rights.

(iii) the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark SODAMCO. A consistent case law considers that domain names identical to the complainant's trademark carry a high risk of implied affiliation, which supports the finding of bad faith in registration.

The fact that the disputed domain name is not used does not exclude the finding of "use in bad faith" for the purpose of the Policy. In support of bad faith the Panel considers relevant the following factors:

(i) the degree of distinctiveness of the trademark SODAMCO;

(ii) the failure of the Respondent to reply to the Complainant or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use;

(iii) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put given the distinctiveness of the SODAMCO trademark and the fact that <sodamco.com> was registered by the Respondent following a lack of renewal by the Complainant.

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.