{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102954", "time_of_filling": "2020-03-05 09:50:50", "domain_names": [ "eutselat.com" ], "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "EUTELSAT S.A." ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)", "respondent": [ "pl plast" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant draws Panel attention to previous UDRP decisions:\r\n\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2003-0093, Microsoft Corporation v. X-Obx Designs (“Typographical error variations and misspellings of trademarked terms have long been found to be confusingly similar.”);\r\n- Forum Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group (“Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group.” The Panel, therefore, finds under Policy 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy 4(c)(ii).”);\r\n- Forum Case No. FA 699652, The Braun Corporation v. Wayne Loney;\r\n- Forum Case No. 1597465, The Hackett Group, Inc. v. Brian Herns \/ The Hackett Group (“The Panel agrees that typosquatting is occurring, and finds this is additional evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests under Policy 4(a)(ii).”);\r\n- Forum Case No. 1775963, United Rentals, Inc. v. saskia gaaede \/ Mr (“Complainant submits that Respondent is intending to impersonate Complainant to contact customers of Complainant, posing as a credit supervisor of Complainant, directing customers to transmit payments to a bank account not controlled by Complainant. See Compl. Append. M. Therefore, the Panel agrees with Complainant and finds that Respondent has does not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name per Policy 4(c)(i) or (iii)”);\r\n- CAC Case No. 102753, EUTELSAT S.A. v. pl plast ;\r\n- Forum Case No. FA 877979, Microsoft Corporation v. Domain Registration Philippines (\"In addition, Respondent’s misspelling of Complainant’s MICROSOFT mark in the domain name indicates that Respondent is typosquatting, which is a further indication of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(a)(iii).\");\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2014-1471, Accor v. SANGHO HEO \/ Contact Privacy Inc. (“The un-opposed allegation of phishing, and the evidence submitted in support of phishing, combined with the likelihood of confusion, is sufficient evidence of bad faith“);\r\n- Forum Case No. 1393436, Qatalyst Partners LP and Qatalyst Partners LLP v. Alyna Devimore \/ N\/A (“the Panel holds that Respondent’s registration and use of the domain name as part of the phishing scheme described above is sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(a)(iii)”).\r\n\r\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\n• The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the protected mark\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark EUTELSAT while the inversion of the letters “E” and “S” in the trademark EUTELSAT is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark and branded goods of the Complainant. According to the Complainant, the typosquatting consists of an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. Besides, the term “EUTELSAT” has no other signification, except to the Complainant.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to Complainant’s trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated. \r\n\r\n• Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and he is not related in any way with the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Neither licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark EUTELSAT, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the trademark EUTELSAT. Typosquatting is the practice of registering a domain name in an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and can be evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. \r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant asserts that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass itself off as one of the Complainant’s executive, in order to receive payment in place of the Complainant. According to the Complainant, using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy 4 (c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy 4(c)(iii). \r\n\r\n• The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name and is using it in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known trademark EUTELSAT. The Complainant further states that the Respondent has used the domain name in a phishing scheme, attempting to pass off as one of the Complainant’s executive. Thus, the Respondent necessarily knew about the Complainant and its affiliates. Additionally, the Respondent in this case has already registered domain names comprising the Complainant’s trademark and used them for phishing: \r\n- CAC Case No. 102753, EUTELSAT S.A. v. pl plast .\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks, which evidences bad faith.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant states the misspelling of the trademark EUTELSAT was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark. Previous UDRP Panels have seen such actions as evidence of bad faith. \r\n\r\nFinally, the Respondent has used the domain name in a phishing scheme. Indeed, the Respondent attempted to pass of as one of the Complainant’s executive. Therefore, the Complainant states that the Responded used the disputed domain name in bad faith, as it is well-established that using a domain name for purposes of phishing or other fraudulent activity constitutes solid evidence of bad faith use.", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings relating to the disputed domain name.", "no_response_filed": "RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n", "rights": "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).", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "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).", "bad_faith": "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).", "procedural_factors": "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.", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Mgr. Barbora Donathová, LL.M." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-04-12 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "EUTELSAT S.A. (the Complainant) is one of the leading operators in the commercial satellite business (www.eutelsat.com).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states and provides evidence to support, that it is the owner of several trademarks EUTELSAT, such as the international trademark EUTELSAT n°479499 registered and renewed since June 20, 1983 and the international trademark EUTELSAT n° 777505 registered and renewed since December 31, 2001, predating the date of registration of the disputed domain name .\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also owns several domain names, including the same distinctive wording EUTELSAT, of which the domain name , registered since October 29, 1996.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on December 4, 2019.\r\n\r\nThe domain name points to an inactive page and has been used in a phishing scheme.", "decision_domains": { "EUTSELAT.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }