Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108361

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 domain name <sakuradate.com>, registered on 3 March 2023.

The Complainant is the owner, among others, of the following registered trademarks:

UK trademark registration N° UK00004050046 for the word SAKURADATE, applied for on 10 May 2024 and registered for goods and services of class 45;

UK trademark registration N° UK00003955767 for the word SAKURADATE with figurative elements, applied for on 12 September 2023 and registered for goods and services of class 45;

US trademark registration N° 7500416 for the word SAKURADATE with figurative elements, applied for on 22 September 2023 and registered for goods and services of class 45.

According to the Complainant, SAKURADATE is a dating platform launched beginning March 2023.

From March 2023 onward, the Complainant publicly and consistently used the SAKURADATE name in connection with its services, including through its social media accounts and other online channels aimed at user acquisition and brand recognition. In addition, beginning in April 2023, the Complainant launched paid online advertising campaigns for its services, including via Google Ads, to promote its services under the SAKURADATE trademark.

On 19 June 2023, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name <sakuradates.com>, which differs from the SAKURADATE mark and the Complainant’s domain name by the addition of a single letter “s” (i.e., pluralization).

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) 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).

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).

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.

1. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights

The Complainant’s formal trademark registrations were obtained after the registration of the disputed domain name, but this does not affect the application of the first requirement of the Policy. The Policy does not require the trademark of the Complainant to be prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Complainant has established rights in the SAKURADATE trade name through its prior and continuous use in commerce.

The disputed domain name <sakuradates.com> incorporates the Complainant’s SAKURADATE mark in its entirety with only the addition of the letter “s”. Panels have consistently found that pluralization or other minor typographical variations are a classic form of typosquatting that does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The “.com” gTLD is disregarded for purposes of the first element.

These findings are not being disputed by the Respondent, and the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.

2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name

The Complainant states that the Respondent is not related with nor authorized by the Complainant to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Complainant asserts that, to the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and the Respondent does not hold any corresponding trademark rights.

The Complainant further states that although the website operating under the disputed domain name offers online dating services, such use cannot be considered bona fide where it deliberately adopts a domain name that is virtually identical to the Complainant’s trademark; operates in the identical commercial field as the Complainant; and relies on confusion with the Complainant’s brand to attract Internet users. Further, the Complainant points to deceptive presentation of purported operating entities and proprietary assertions in the Terms of Use, which are inconsistent with good-faith or fair use under the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has not made legitimate use of the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services. In lack of any Response from the Respondent, or any other information indicating the contrary, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

3. The disputed domain name is registered and is being used in bad faith

The Complaint supports that by June 2023, the Complainant’s SAKURADATE platform and brand were publicly launched and visible online (including via advertising and social media), and that the Respondent subsequently registered a plural-form domain in the identical commercial field - behavior characteristic of typosquatting and targeting.

The Complaint further shows that the Respondent targeted branded search traffic and engaged in paid advertising in 2024 on searches for “sakuradate” and variants, to attract users to the disputed domain name for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement - conduct expressly contemplated by Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv). Panels routinely infer bad faith in analogous circumstances where the structure of the domain and surrounding use demonstrate an intention to create an association with the Complainant and to benefit commercially from confusion.

The Complaint also describes deceptive practices that obscure the Respondent’s identity (inconsistent presentation of purported operating entities based on user location) and amplify user confusion (omitting any clear disclaimer of affiliation and employing practices that create or reinforce an impression of association with the Complainant), which support a finding of bad faith.

The Panel concludes the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.