Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-107807

The disputed domain name <payssend.com> is confusingly similar to the PAYSEND trademark, as it clearly incorporates such trademark in its entirety, with the mere addition of letter "s", thus making the domain at hand a clear example of typosquatting. 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has proven the first element of the Policy.

***

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 parking page with a "coming soon" page, 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 fact that the Complainant is very active in Latin America and the message in Spanish on the webpage at the disputed domain name create an impression that any future site may be somehow connected to /endorsed by the Complainant.

In addition to the above, the Panel notes - according to the Complainant's investigation - the Respondent would carry out cross-border payments and offer financial services, thus being a direct competitor of the Complainant. 

As indicated in the decision for CAC Case No. 104089 involving the Complainant, "... 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 provide any explanation on why the disputed domain name was registered, nor he has demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name: 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.