Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-107538

The Complainant, VOLATYS, is a French company specialized in the offering of poultry cut, graded and processed. The Complainant is present in all distribution sectors: catering, food processing, supermarkets and export. It has expanded internationally and is now present in over 20 countries. VOLATYS is well recognized among food industry professionals - especially within the wholesale market segments in France and across Europe. Its market presence (20+ countries, 180+ products), strong visibility at industry events, high quality standards, and investment activity all confirm a solid reputation background.

 The Complainant also owns the domain name <volatys.com>, registered on July 15, 2005.

The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the disputed domain name <voiatys.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark VOLATYS. Considering the reputation of the Complainant and its trademark, it becomes evident that the obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark VOLATYS (i.e. the insertion of the letter “I” instead of the letter „L“) is characteristic of a typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name (section 1.9 of WIPO Overview 3.0 states: “A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element.”).

The Panel acknowledges that the Complainant presented prima facie evidence that the Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant in any way. Furthermore, Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or permitted Respondent to use Complainant’s trademark in any manner, including in domain names. The Respondent's name does not resemble the disputed domain name in any manner. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use (Policy Para. 4(c)).

As no administratively compliant response has been provided to the Panel and the prima facie evidence was not challenged by the Respondent, the Panel concludes that the Respondent, when he registered the disputed domain name, meant nothing else except the Complainant's trademark VOLATYS (see WIPO Overview 3.0, para. 3.1.1). Previous UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.

The disputed domain name resolves to an index page. From the inception of the UDRP, previous panellists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. Having regard to the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, the failure of the Respondent to submit a response and the implausibility of any good faith use, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith (section 3.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0).

Moreover, MX servers are configured which suggests that the disputed domain name may be actively used for email purposes (see WIPO Overview 3.0, para. 3.4). This is indicative of bad faith use because any email emanating from the disputed domain name could not be used for any good faith purpose (CAC Case No. 102827, JCDECAUX SA v. Handi Hariyono).