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<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant contends the disputed domain name is essentially identical to its “PRICE RUNNER” trademark, the addition of the (S) letter being just the result of the variation from the singular into the plural form the \"Price\" component of the mark, which cannot change the overall impression of the designation so that is does not impact on the likelihood of confusion. It is clear that the Complainant’s mark remains dominant and recognisable in the disputed domain name’s string (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7: ‘in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing.’).<\/p>\n THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant submits that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Following the submissions made in this section of the Complaint, the burden will shift to the Respondent to put forward evidence to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant notes that the disputed domain name resolves to a parked page which prominently brandishes the text ‘Come Back Soon’ above a countdown timer. This page reflects a generic site-building template and lacks links to external pages\/sites. There is no evidence that the Respondent has made any use (other than that of a parked\/offline\/coming soon-type page) of the disputed domain name since its registration in January 2023.<\/p>\n THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant further submits that the Respondent’s selection of the string ‘pricesrunner.com’, particularly given the proximity of the letters ‘e’ and ‘s’ on a Qwerty keyboard, reflects the latter’s attempt to capitalise on the former through typosquatting conduct (which panels have affirmed is ‘inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith’ – see National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues, Inc., d\/b\/a Minor League Baseball v. John Zuccarini, WIPO Case No. D2002-1011). The addition of a single character in the middle of the Complainant’s mark reflects the Respondent’s attempt to misleadingly capture and divert good faith internet users that mistype ‘pricerunner.com’ in their browser’s search bar. In view of all of the above factors (noting, in particular, the ease with which any internet user can find the Complainant’s offerings online), it is clear that the Respondent sought to capitalise on the Complainant’s trademark rights through its registration of the disputed domain name.<\/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": " Complainant´s contentions are summarised 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": [
"Roberto Manno"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2024-01-22 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " In this proceeding the Complainant is a Swedish company and relies on the following trademark registrations:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Trademark<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n Origin<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n Registration Number<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n Registration Date<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n Class(es) Covered<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n PRICERUNNER<\/p>\n<\/td>\n International<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 866969<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 26\/01\/2005<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 35<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n PRICERUNNER<\/p>\n<\/td>\n Sweden<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 371312<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 24\/03\/2005<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 35<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n PRICERUNNER.COM<\/p>\n<\/td>\n European Union<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 004258794<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 21\/03\/2006<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 9, 35, 42<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n PRICERUNNER<\/p>\n<\/td>\n European Union<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 003908531<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 06\/04\/2006<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 9, 35, 38, 41, 42<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n PRICERUNNER<\/p>\n<\/td>\n United Kingdom<\/p>\n<\/td>\n UK00903908531<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 06\/04\/2006<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 9, 35, 38, 41, 42<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n PRICERUNNER<\/p>\n<\/td>\n United States<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 4975600<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 14\/06\/2016<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 35, 38, 41<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n The Complainant also refers to various domain names that incorporate the “PRICE RUNNER” trademark, including <PRICERUNNER.COM>, registered since 19 May 1999. The Complainant gained a considerable popularity and has been awarded as a leading price comparation service provider. <\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"pricesrunner.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n\n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n