{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106366", "time_of_filling": "2024-03-21 10:43:59", "domain_names": [ "mandatunmam.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Mandatum Oyj", "Mandatum Holding Oy" ], "complainant_representative": "Hannu Halmetoja (Berggren Oy)", "respondent": [ "John Dragisic" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is a Finish asset management company and part of a group whose parent company, Mandatum Holding Oy, is listed on the Helsinki Stock Exchange.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <mandatunmam.com > was registered on 14 December 2023. Its MX servers are configured as on 15-18 December 2023, it was used to send emails. Nothing is known of the Respondent other than name and jurisdiction.<\/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:<\/p>\n

The Complainant says the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks, the word marks MANDATUM and MAM and the only character that differs is the additional N –at the end of mandatun<\/em> in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

That imperceptible change by the additional letter “N” is classic typo-squatting. The Complainant says that misspelling does not prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.<\/p>\n

The Complainant says the Respondent is not identified in the WHOIS database as known by the disputed domain name. Past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the WHOIS information was not similar to the disputed domain name. See The Forum Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group. Furthermore, the Complainant says typo-squatting can be evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. See The Forum Case No. 1765498, Spotify AB v. The LINE The Line \/ The Line and The Forum Case No. 1597465, The Hackett Group, Inc. v. Brian Herns \/ The Hackett Group.<\/p>\n

It also says the disputed domain name is used for illegal activity or phishing which can never be a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use. See The Forum Case No. FA 970871, Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend and WIPO Case No. D2007-1695, Mayflower Transit LLC v. Domains by Proxy Inc.\/Yariv Moshe.<\/p>\n

Finally, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark it says it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered and used the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trade marks.<\/p>\n

Further, the Respondent has also tried to deliberately hide his identity by use of the privacy service, and that can support an inference of bad faith, see TTT Moneycorp Limited v. Diverse Communications, WIPO Case No. D2001-0725, and Schering Corporation v. Name Redacted, WIPO Case No D2012-0729, as well as section 3.2.1 of the Overview.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/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": [ "Victoria McEvedy", "James Bridgeman", "Lars Karnoe" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-04-25 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant owns various national and other marks in 30 countries and including, but not limited to, the following:<\/p>\n

      1.an EUTM, being the word mark, MANDATUM, Registered Number 002136869, registered on 26 June 2002 in classes 35 and 36;<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. an EUTM, being the word mark, MANDATUM AM, Registered Number 018626044, registered on 3 June 2002 in classes 9, 35 and 36;<\/li>\n
  2. an EUTM, being the word mark, MANDATUM TRADER Registered Number, 018626047 registered on 3 June 2002 in classes 9, 35 and 36;<\/li>\n
  3. an EUTM, being the word mark, MANDATUM Registered Number, 018626053 registered on 3 June 2002 in classes 9, 35 and 36;<\/li>\n
  4. an EUTM, being the word mark, MANDATUM ASSET MANAGEMENT Registered Number, 018627227 registered on 3 June 2002 in classes 9, 35 and 36;<\/li>\n
  5. an EUTM, being a device mark with the word element, MANDATUM Registered Number, 018627416 registered on 3 June 2002 in classes 9, 35 and 36; <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          7 an EUTM, being the word mark, MAM, Registered Number, 018626011 registered on 3 June 2002 in classes 9, 35 and 36;<\/p>\n

         8. a national mark being the word mark, MANDATUM, registered in Finland as Registered Number 224758.<\/p>\n

    The Complainant also owns many domain names which include the name and word mark, including but not limited to <mandatum.fi>, <mandatum.eu>, <mandatum.se>, <mandatumam.com>, <mandatumam.fi>, <mandatumam.se>, <mandatumtrade.fi>, <mandatumtrader.com> and <mandatumtrader.se>.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "mandatunmam.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }