Complainant states that it is “Australia’s third largest travel insurance provider and global distributor of travel insurance”; that it “provides health and medical insurance to over 1.4 million Australian and New Zealand residents, and also provide health insurance to more than 190,000 international students and workers in Australia”; and that it operates a website using the domain name <www.worldnomads.com>.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Complainant further states that in 2015 it acquired 100 percent of WorldNomads Group, which was founded in 2002. Complainant does not explain the legal relationship between WorldNomads Group and WorldNomads.com Pty Limited.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Disputed Domain Names were created on the following dates and are being used as described below, as shown in screenshots provided as annexes to the Complaint:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<worldsnomads.com>: Created on June 21, 2022. Used in connection with a pay-per-click site with links labelled, inter alia, “World Nomads Travel Insurance”. (Note: The Complaint refers to the domain name <wworldsnomads.com> at the outset, but the body of the Complaint refers instead to <worldsnomads.com>, and the Panel has observed that the domain name <wworldsnomads.com> does not exist. Therefore, the Panel proceeds on the assumption that the Complaint intended to refer throughout to <worldsnomads.com>, not to <wworldsnomads.com>.);<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
<worldnmads.com> Created on June 8, 2022. Used in connection with a pay-per-click site with links labeled, inter alia, “Best Travel Insurance”;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
<worldomads.com>: Created on June 8, 2022. Used in connection with a pay-per-click site with links labeled, inter alia, “Best Travel Insurance”;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
<worldnoads.com>: Created on June 8, 2022. Used in connection with a pay-per-click site with links labeled, inter alia, “Best Travel Insurance”.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
<\/p>\n
In addition, the Disputed Domain Names are being offer for sale for $7,999.00, as shown in a screenshot provided as an annex to the Complaint:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(a)(i): Complainant states that each of the Disputed Domain Names is confusingly similar to the WORLD NOMADS Trademark because “the Disputed Domain Names differ from Complainant’s trademark by just one letter” and “Respondent’s domains must be considered a prototypical example of typosquatting – which intentionally takes advantage of internet users that inadvertently type an incorrect address – often a misspelling of the complainant’s trademark – when seeking to access the trademark owner’s website.”<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(a)(ii): Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia, “Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant in any way”; Complainant has not “given Respondent license, authorization or permission to use Complainant’s trademark in any manner, including in domain names”; “Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names” given that “the pertinent Whois information identifies the Registrant as ‘Zhi Chao Yang’, which does not resemble the Disputed Domain Names in any manner”; “Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names in June 2022, which was significantly after the registration of the WORLDNOMADS trademark”; “Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Names to direct internet users to websites featuring links to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant's business”; and “the Disputed Domain Names are being offered for sale at Afternic for $7,999.00 USD each, an amount that far exceeds the Respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses in registering the domains.”<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(a)(iii): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, inter alia, “WORLD NOMADS is so closely linked and associated with Complainant that Respondent’s use of this mark, or any minor variation of it, strongly implies bad faith – where a domain name is so obviously connected with such a well-known name and products, its very use by someone with no connection with the products suggests opportunistic bad faith” (internal citation and punctuation omitted); given the fame of the WORLD NOMADS Trademark, “Respondent knew, or at least should have known, of the existence of the Complainant's trademark”; “[t]yposquatting itself has also been taken as evidence of bad faith registration and use”; “Respondent has demonstrated a nefarious intent to capitalize on the fame and goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark in order to increase traffic to the Disputed Domain Names’ websites for Respondent’s own pecuniary gain, as evidenced by the presence of multiple pay-per-click links posted to Respondent’s websites, some of which directly reference Complainant and\/or its competitors”; “[t]he four infringing domain names registered by Respondent further demonstrates that the Respondent is engaging in a pattern of cybersquatting”; “Respondent has demonstrated an intent to sell, rent, or otherwise transfer the Disputed Domain Names for valuable consideration in excess of his out-of-pocket expenses”; and Respondent has lost previous decisions under the Policy.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and that relate to the Disputed Domain Names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
No administratively compliant response has been filed.<\/p>", "rights": "
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Disputed Domain Names are 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 UDRP).<\/p>", "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 Names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the UDRP).<\/p>", "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.<\/p>\n
The Complaint was submitted in English. On September 9, 2022, CAC notified Complainant that the language of the registration agreement is in Chinese. On September 12, 2022, Complainant requested English as the language of the proceeding because translation would “unfairly disadvantage and burden the Complainant and delay the proceedings”; the words “WORLD NOMADS” do not “carry any specific meaning in the Chinese language”; and the websites associated with the Disputed Domain Names “include several terms and phrases in the English language.”<\/p>\n
Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules states: “Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.” As set forth in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.5, “panels have found that certain scenarios may warrant proceeding in a language other than that of the registration agreement,” including, inter alia, “the language\/script of the domain name”, “any content on the webpage under the disputed domain name”, and “potential unfairness or unwarranted delay in ordering the complainant to translate the complaint.”<\/p>\n
In light of the above, including the reasons set forth by Complainant (and in the absence of any argument to the contrary by Respondent), the Panel determines that the language of this proceeding shall be English. See, e.g., Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. v. Lidia Galbiati<\/em>, CAC Case No. 102425.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Douglas Isenberg"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2022-10-24 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " Complainant states, and provides evidence to support, that its affiliate WorldNomads.com Pty Limited is the owner of multiple trademark registrations for the mark WORLD NOMADS, including Australia Reg. No. 1,676,133 (registered February 20, 2015), New Zealand Reg. No. 979,240 (registered December 19, 2013), U.S. Reg. No. 5,169,103 (registered March 28, 2017), Canada Reg. No. TMA 1,053,045 (registered September 6, 2019), and WIPO Reg. No. 1,267,300 (registered March 30, 2015) (the “WORLD NOMADS Trademark”).<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"worldsnomads.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"worldnmads.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"worldomads.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"worldnoads.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}