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 states that it is a French company that has been designing and manufacturing metal and colored outdoor furniture since 1989.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on March 28, 2023 and resolves to an inactive page, while MX servers are configured.<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark and its domain names and is an example of typosquatting.
The disputed domain name represents an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark “FERMOB”, i.e. the substitution of the letter “M” by the letters “R” and “N”. The Complainant alleges this practice is characteristic of a typosquatting intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. <\/p>\n
The <.com> gTLD is not relevant in the appreciation of confusing similarity as it does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n
Thus, the Complainant contends the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n
THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/p>\n
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name, is not related in any way with the Complainant and the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.
Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of its trademark and “typosquatting” itself can be evidence of lack rights and legitimate interests.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page and the Complainant asserts that since the Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name since its registration this confirms that the Respondent has no demonstrable plans to use the disputed domain name and demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH<\/p>\n
The Complainant’s submissions on the bad faith element of the UDRP can be summarized as follows:
1. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its distinctive trademark “FERMOB”. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name several years after the registration of the Complainant’s trademarks, and the Complainant has established a strong reputation while using its trademarks. The Complainant contends that the term “FERMOB” does not have any meaning (as a contraction of French term “FER” (“steel”) and MOB (for French term “Mobilier” – “Furniture”), except in relation to the Complainant as confirmed by “Google” search results provided by the Complainant as an annex.
2. The Complainant claims that given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and its reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.
3. The Complainant states the misspelling of the trademark “FERMOB” by the Respondent was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark. Previous UDRP Panels have considered such actions as evidence of bad faith.
4. The Complainant relies on the passive holding doctrine and the “Telstra” decision (WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, “Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows”) and alleges that passive holding in the present case indicates bad faith of the Respondent since it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate.
5. The Complainant alleges that while the disputed domain name appears to be unused, it has been set up with MX records which suggests that it may be actively used for email purposes.
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": "
The Complainant's contentions are summarized in the Factual Background section above.<\/p>\n
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": "2023-07-14 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
In this proceeding the Complainant relies on the following trademark registrations: The Complainant also refers to various domain names that incorporate the “Fermob” trademark, including <fermob.com> registered since December 24, 1996.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"ferrnob.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}
- The French trademark registration No. 3243498 “Fermob” (word + device), applied on September 1st, 2003;
- The EU trademark registration No. 6952758 “Fermob” (word), registered on January 29, 2009 and
- The international trademark registration No. 829242 “Fermob” (word + device), registered on March 1st, 2004 and protected inter alia<\/em> in the Benelux, Italy, Germany, Switzerland and Turkey.<\/p>\n