FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS<\/p>\n
The Complainant was founded in 1999 and is a Swedish tech company headquartered in Stockholm.
The Complainant launched the online product and price comparison service “PriceRunner” back in 1999, which allows internet users to compare prices on a range of products.
The Complainant alleges that with more than 200 employees, it is the leading comparison-shopping service in the Nordic region with operations in Sweden, Denmark, Norway and the United Kingdom, and approximately 18.2 million visits every month in all countries. <\/p>\n
The Complainant hosts at its base 3.4 million products from 22,500 e-shops in 25 European countries and had revenues of EUR 46 million in 2021. <\/p>\n
The Complainant officially became a part of the “Klarna” Group on April 1, 2022. “Klarna” is a Swedish global payments and shopping service. <\/p>\n
The Complainant refers to its “PRICERUNNER” and “PRICERUNNER.COM” trademarks and to its main website www.pricerunner.com under the domain name registered back in 1999.<\/p>\n
The Complainant highlights that its trademarks predate the disputed domain name that was registered on September 13, 2022.
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name includes its “PRICERUNNER” and “PRICERUNNER.COM” marks in full, with the addition of a letter “r”, which can be considered as a typographical error. <\/p>\n
Therefore, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is a typical typosquatting case, since it reproduces Complainant’s “PRICERUNNER” and “PRICERUNNER.COM” marks in their entirety but with a minor alteration of letters, which does not change the overall impression that the trademark is sufficiently recognizable within the disputed domain name. <\/p>\n
THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/p>\n
The Complainant states the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, and has not received any consent, permission or authorization from the Complainant to use its marks in association with the registration of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent does not hold any trademark rights in respect of the disputed domain name and has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name or by the term “pricerunnerr”.
The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
On the contrary, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name resolves to a website in several languages which includes in an unauthorized manner Complainant’s “PRICERUNNER” mark in full, as well as the logo of the Complainant.
The Complainant alleges impersonation by the Respondent and refers to one instance where an individual was confused about the nature of the website by the disputed domain name and was a fraud victim.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the Complainant claims the disputed domain name was used for unlawful purposes, of obtaining money and personal information from Internet users.
Such deceptive, confusing and unlawful use of the disputed domain name cannot in any way amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Besides, typosquatting itself negates any rights or legitimate interests as it creates confusion with the Complainant and its marks and indicates impersonation of the Complainant.<\/p>\n
THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH<\/p>\n
As regards bad faith registration the Complainant’s submissions can be summarized as follows:
- Complainant’s trademarks pre-date registration date of the disputed domain name and the Respondent should have aware of the marks since the term “pricerunner” is associated with the Complainant;
- The disputed domain name is almost identical to Complainant’s marks and, in the Complainant’s view, it is impossible to believe the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without having them (the marks) in mind;
- A simple search in the online trademark registers or in the search engine at the date of registration of the disputed domain name would have informed the Respondent about the existence of Complainant’s rights in the “PRICERUNNER” or “PRICERUNNER.COM” marks;
- Typosquatting is an indication of bad faith per se;
- The use of the disputed domain name also indicates registration in bad faith since the website by the disputed domain name reproduces Complainant’s trademark as well as logo.<\/p>\n
As regards bad faith use the Complainant claims the following:
- The use of both the mark of the Complainant and its logo on the website by the disputed domain name indicates impersonation;
- The website by the disputed domain name seems to collect users’ information for login purposes. Therefore, the Complainant states the Respondent used the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant, or otherwise misled Internet users as to the source of Respondent’s website, in order to engage them in a phishing scheme, which amounts to bad faith;
- The Respondent is using without Complainant’s permission the “PRICERUNNER” mark to intentionally attempt to attract for commercial gain Internet users to the website hosted by the disputed domain name, by creating likelihood of confusion with the “PRICERUNNER” mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site or services offered, which amounts to registration and use in bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4 (b)(iv) of the UDRP and
- Respondent’s use of a privacy registration service for the disputed domain name is an additional indication for a finding of bad faith registration and use.
Therefore, the Complainant claims the disputed domain name was registered and being used in bad faith.<\/p>",
"other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/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 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).<\/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 name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "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).<\/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>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Igor Motsnyi" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-11-26 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
In this proceeding the Complainant relies on the following trademarks:<\/p>\n
- The UK Trademark No. UK00903908531 “PRICERUNNER” (word mark), registered on April 6, 2006, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 38, 41 and 42;
- The EU Trademark No. 003908531 “PRICERUNNER” (word mark), registered on April 6, 2006 for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 38, 41 and 42;
- The EU Trademark No. 004258794 “PRICERUNNER.COM” (word mark), registered on March 21, 2006 for goods and services in classes 9, 35 and 42;
- The International Trademark No. 866969 “PRICERUNNER” (word mark), registered on January 26, 2005 for services in class 35, designating, inter alia, Norway, Switzerland and Japan; and
- The US Trademark No. 4975600 “PRICERUNNER” (word mark), registered on June 14, 2016, for goods and services in classes 35, 38 and 41.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"pricerunnerr.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}