Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-107612

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.

The Complainant is the owner of the following trademarks:

 ("Complainant's Trademarks")

The disputed domain name <ghirardelii.com> was registered on 27 December 2025.

As the Respondent did not file any response to the complaint, the Panel took into account the following facts asserted by the Complainant (and supported by the documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant) and unchallenged by the Respondent:

COMPLAINANT:

In addition to the above factual assertions, the Complainant also contends the following:

(a) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademarks. The slight spelling variation of substituting the “l” with "i" is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's Trademarks. It is well-established that the slight spelling variations do not prevent a disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademarks;

(b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and he is not related in any way to the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Neither license nor authorization has been granted by the Complainant to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s Trademarks or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.  Besides, the Complainant also claims that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of Complainant's Trademark. Typosquatting is the practice of registering a domain name to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and which shows that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name;

(c) Furthermore, the misspelling of Complainant's Trademarks was intentionally created by the Respondent to establish confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to Complainant’s Trademarks. The Complainant contends such practice of the Respondent is evidence of bad faith. Moreover, as the MX records for the disputed domain name are configured, there is a risk that the disputed domain name may be used for fraudulent activity such as phishing. Consequently, the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent.

RESPONDENT:

The Respondent did not provide any response to the complaint.

The Panel concluded that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademarks within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP" or "Policy").

For details, please see "Principal Reasons for the Decision".

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).

For details, please see "Principal Reasons for the Decision".

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

For details, please see "Principal Reasons for the Decision".

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant proves each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the disputed domain name should be transferred or revoked:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

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


The Panel will proceed to analyse whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in these proceedings.

RIGHTS

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademarks. It contains the word element of Complainant's Trademarks (GHIRARDELLI) with slight spelling variation (GHIRARDELII). The Panel believes that such slight spelling variation is not sufficient to avoid confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to Complainant’s Trademarks.

For sake of completeness, the Panel asserts that the top-level suffix in the domain name (i.e. the ".com") must be disregarded under the identity / confusing similarity test as it is a necessary technical requirement of registration.

Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Complainant satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS

The Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy (for example, WIPO case no. D2003-0455, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.).

As asserted by the Complainant (and unchallenged by the Respondent), the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Neither is the Respondent in any way related to the Complainant. 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). 

Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

BAD FAITH

The Panel believes that this case is a prima facie example of typosquatting (i.e. registration of a domain name with a spelling error either for attracting Internet users to the registrant's web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the official website of the trademark owner or for other fraudulent purposes such as phishing or impersonating the trademark owner) which is one of the clear situations of bad faith registration / use of a domain name (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). As numerous previous decisions have held, typosquatting as such is evidence of bad faith (please see, for example, WIPO Case No. D2011-1079 bwin.party services (Austria) GmbH v. Interagentur AG; WIPO Case No. D2002-0568, Go Daddy Software, Inc. v. Daniel Hadani; WIPO Case No. D2002-0423 Dell Computer Corporation v. Clinical Evaluations, or WIPO Case No. D2001-0970, Briefing.com Inc v. Cost Net Domain Manager). Moreover, given that the MX records of the disputed domain name are configured, there is a risk that the disputed domain name may be used for fraudulent activity (such as phishing) by the Respondent. This further contributes to the conclusion of apparent bad faith on the side of the Respondent.

As a result, the Panel found that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).