Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-105743

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

The Complainant relies upon United States registered trade mark no. mark Reg. No. US TM Reg. No. 6,063,205 for LAND INTELLIGENCE as a standard character mark in classes 36 and 42 in respect of, inter alia, "land acquisition project management planning and implementation services". The mark is subject to a disclaimer in respect of the term "LAND".

FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT

The Complainant has used its LAND INTELLIGENCE mark for the services in respect of which it is registered. 

The Complainant has also promoted its services online through a number of different domain names including <landintelligence.com> and the Domain Name since at least 2011. The Domain Name was used by the Complainant as its principle e-mail address.  

In addition to the registered trade mark relied upon, the Complainant is the owner of various other registered trade marks, including for the term "LANDSUITE" (US Registered trade mark no. 6,703,213) and for a logo that take the form of an inverted teardrop together with a jagged upward arrow (US Registered trade mark no. 6,111,670).

In August 2025, the Complainant's auto-renewal payment data with GoDaddy in respect of the Domain Name expired, and the Domain Name briefly proceeded past its expiration date. Attempts were made by Complainant to retrieve the Domain Name in the renewal period but for whatever reason (and the Complainant blames GoDaddy in this respect) this did not happen. The Domain Name then proceeded to auction where it was sold for US$1,312 to the Respondent.

The Respondent then used the Domain Name for a website that comprised a copy of an archived version of the Complainant's website (including copies of the Complainant's various registered trade marks), but also added numerous paid casino referral links.

The Respondent is also recorded as the registrant of the following domain names used for websites purporting to be operated by the following entities: 

NCELA.us - the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition
SensusFidelium.us - a 501(c)(3) religious organization
Monah.us - the Museum of Native American History
MaineFarmBureau.us - the Maine Farm Bureau
EmbassyOfMorocco.us - the Moroccan embassy to the United States.

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the Domain Name should be transferred to it.

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the 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 Domain Name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the 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.

The Complainant has demonstrated that it has registered trade mark rights in the words LAND INTELLIGENCE, and the Domain Name can only sensibly be read as that term combined with the ".net" gTLD. Accordingly, the Complainant’s trade mark is clearly recognisable in the Domain Name. This is sufficient for a finding of confusing similarity under the Policy (see section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.1). The Complainant has, therefore, satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

The Panel is also satisfied that the Domain Name inherently and deliberately impersonates the Complainant, and has been registered and used for a website that deliberately impersonates the Complainant. Not only does the Domain Name take the form <[Complainant's trade mark].[gTLD]>, but the Panel is satisfied that the circumstances surrounding the Respondent's acquisition of the Domain Name and the subsequent use made of the Domain Name are such that it is more likely than not that the Domain Name was registered with knowledge of the Complainant's business and marks and such deliberate impersonation in mind.  

There is no right or legitimate interest in registering and using a domain name that deliberately and falsely impersonates a trade mark holder, and the registration and use of a domain name for such a purpose is in bad faith. (On the issue of legitimate rights and interests where a domain name takes the form <[trade mark].[gTLD]> see also section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).

Further, the Respondent's use of the Domain Name falls within the scope of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Lastly the Panel also accepts that the registration and use in this case is just one of a number of cases where the Respondent has registered a domain name to falsely impersonate another entity, and that this further supports a finding of lack of rights or legitimate interests and bad faith registration and use. 

The Complainant has, therefore, satisfied the requirements of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy.