The Complainant is a Netherlands entity responsible for managing various rights to the “Miffy” character, created by Dick Bruna in about 1955. The first “Miffy” book swiftly followed the character’s inception and, within a decade, “Miffy” toys emerged, heralding the launch of an array of related products. In subsequent decades, “Miffy” has transcended its origins as a children’s book character to achieve global recognition as a work of art, inspiring a diverse range of lifestyle, fashion, and design products. The Complainant currently contracts with over 300 companies worldwide as licensees to make said products, with at least a thousand different products in the market at any one time over the last decade. Such companies include large international retailers such as H&M and Uniqlo. The licensing activities of the Complainant represent its main source of income.<\/p>\n
The Complainant is the owner of a variety of registered trademarks for the word mark MIFFY, and the “Miffy” brand’s equivalent in Dutch (NIJNTJE) has been recognized as possessing a high degree of fame in Mercis B.V. v. Handelsonderneming Karel Donker<\/em>, WIPO Case No. DNL2020-0041, a case under the Dispute Resolution Regulations for .nl Domain Names (a variation of the UDRP).<\/p>\n According to the corresponding WhoIs record, the disputed domain name was registered on October 15, 2023. The Complainant notes that the associated website currently displays a ‘403’ error but also provides evidence in the form of historic screenshots that show that said website previously featured an online store selling articles of clothing such as sweaters, knitwear and jackets, which could be shipped to the United States of America, France or Spain, among other locations.<\/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 Respondent registered a domain name that clearly consists of misspelling, which is confusingly similar to the registered MIFFY trademark. The only difference between the disputed domain name and said mark is the substitution of the letter “l” for the letter “i”. The present case is a typical example of the substitution of similar-appearing characters. When writing in capital letters, the said mark and the disputed domain name have the same visual appearance. The misspelling does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity as the Complainant’s trademark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has no relationship with the Respondent and has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use the MIFFY trademark in the disputed domain name. In the absence of such license or authorization, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name can reasonably be claimed. No credible evidence has been produced by the Respondent or is otherwise available that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. “Mlffy” is not a word that is easily pronounced in the English language. This makes it all the more likely that this is not the Respondent’s personal or business name. The disputed domain name is a textbook example of typosquatting and cannot constitute fair use. The website associated with the disputed domain name presented clothing for sale that could be shipped to various countries. These goods are the same as those for which the Complainant has registered marks which cover said countries. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name for commercial gain to mislead or divert customers. The Respondent’s website contained no contact details. This suggests a lack of rights or legitimate interests.<\/p>\n The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant’s various registered marks date back to 1996. The disputed domain name incorporates a misspelling of the Complainant’s MIFFY mark and was registered on October 15, 2023. It would be implausible to suggest that the Respondent did not have actual knowledge of the Complainant’s mark at that point. Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos) to a famous or widely known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. It is also bad faith to use the disputed domain name for a website that offers competing goods to those of the Complainant. There is a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no credible explanation for the Respondent’s choice of domain name. The word “mlffy” cannot easily be pronounced in the English language, which is the language of the website associated with the disputed domain name. It is an unlikely name to have been selected for an online shop seeking to be identified by potential customers other than in a typosquatting context. It is also relevant that the Respondent uses a privacy protection service and that its website did not provide any contact information.<\/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": [
"Andrew Lothian"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2024-05-06 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " Among others, the Complainant is owner of European Union Registered Trademark No. 13876628 in respect of the word mark MIFFY, registered on December 2, 2015 in Classes 3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35 and 41.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"mlffy.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}