Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-107664

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that to obtain the transfer of the domain name; the complainant must prove that each of the following elements is present:

(i) the 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 domain name; and

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

1) The Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use on the "CANNGO" trademark. The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the "CANNGO" trademark of the Complainant. Actually, all the disputed domain names include a term "CANGO" or "CAN-GO" (where the hyphen is destined to go unnoticed as per the unanimous opinion of previous panels) with the addition of geographic identifiers related to Germany and words or numbers which have to be considered generic where related to the Complainant's business. In particular, the Panel finds that the mark "CANNGO" is perfectly recognizable within all the disputed domain names. Despite the use of common, obvious or intentional misspellings of the mark (a single consonant "n", instead of the double "n", as in the original one) or the combination of the mark with generic terms and/or geographical identifiers, the CANNGO mark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain names. Finally, the generic TLDs (.com/.biz/.shop) are mere technical requirements, which do not affect the identity between the signs and should be totally disregarded in the comparison between the Complainant's mark and the disputed domain names. The Complainant therefore succeeds on the first element of the Policy.

2) The Complainant demonstrated that all the websites to which the disputed domain names are linked pretend to impersonate the Complainant's business also by using a sign highly confusingly similar to the Complainant's one. The Complainant clearly considers that Respondent has the hope and the expectation that Internet users looking for the brand "CANNGO" will be directed to the websites corresponding to the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that said activity, of course, does not provide a legitimate interest in the disputed domain names under the Policy. Furthermore, the Complainant provided prima facie evidence that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names as it was never authorized to use the "CANNGO" trademark by the Complainant. The Respondent, in the absence of any Response, has not shown any facts or element to justify prior rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Complainant therefore succeeds on the second element of the Policy.

3) Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exclusive list of circumstances that evidence registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Any one of the following is sufficient to support a finding of bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain names primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain names registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or

(ii) the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the disputed domain names, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent's website or location.

In the present case, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has made out a case of registration and use in bad faith in terms of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The use of the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant's business also by using a sign highly confusingly similar to the Complainant's one affirms that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and the Complainant’s "CANNGO" trademark when it registered the disputed domain name, and that it intended to target the Complainant and the Complainant’s mark for its own commercial gain. This finding leads to the obvious conclusion that the disputed domain names have been registered in bad faith (Research In Motion Limited v. Privacy Locked LLC/Nat Collicot - WIPO Case No. D2009-0320; The Gap, Inc. v. Deng Youqian - WIPO Case No. D2009-0113; AXA S.A. v. P.A. van der Wees - WIPO Case No. D2009-0206; BHP Billiton Innovation v. Ravindra Bala - WIPO Case No. D2008-1059).

Furthermore, it is the Panel's view that the website associated with the disputed domain names are designed to cause the Complainant’s end-users, to believe that they are dealing with the Complainant’s portal when they are not. Use of domain names to impersonate a complainant for fraudulent purposes is manifestly considered evidence of bad faith under the Policy (see, for example, FIL Limited v. Stewart Lawton, WIPO Case No. D2021-2218 and Olympus Corporation v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Flash Webs, WIPO Case No. D2021-0382). The circumstance that all websites linked to the disputed domain names drive users to fraudulent payment systems reinforce the above-mentioned Panel's finding.

In consideration of the above, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. The Complainant therefore succeeds also on the third element of the Policy.