www.galaxus.ch<\/a>”; “www.digitec.ch” is Switzerland's online market leader in the fields of IT, consumer electronics and telecommunication.
Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark. According to Complainant this is a typical typosquatting case, since it reproduces Complainant’s DIGITEC mark in its entirety but with a minor alteration of letters, which does not change the overall impression that Complainant’s trademark is sufficiently recognizable within the disputed domain name as only the letter “i” has been added to the DIGITEC trademark.
<\/p>\nAccording to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant, and it has not received any consent, permission, authorization or acquiescence from Complainant to use its DIGITEC mark in association with the registration of the disputed domain name. Complainant submits that Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in good faith or for a non-commercial activity. The disputed domain name currently does not resolve to an active website. However, the disputed domain name previously resolved to a website with a similar look-and-feel to Complainant’s website, which also displayed Complainant’s DIGITEC mark and logo in a prominent manner, allegedly offering for sale the same type of products that Complainant offers through its website, with much lower prices than those usually found in this type of products (in fact they are more than 90% off their normal price). Moreover, the website included a “contact us” form, in which a name, an e-mail and a telephone number were requested. In Complainant’s view, this Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name clearly causes confusion for customers, misleading them into thinking that Respondent’s website is operated by or associated with Complainant, when it is not the case. Moreover, for this reason, this “contact us” form in the website may also constitute a phishing scheme aimed to mislead internet users into providing confidential information. Therefore, this deceptive, confusing and unlawful use of the disputed domain name cannot in any way amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
According to Complainant the disputed domain name is registered and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name constitutes a simple typosquatting variant of Complainant’s DIGITEC mark, which seems to be registered to attract Internet users by misleading them into believing that the website at the disputed domain name is authorized by or somehow connected to Complainant.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website. However, the non-use of a disputed domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. Complainant asserts that Respondent has used the disputed domain name in the past in an effort to impersonate Complainant, or otherwise mislead Internet users as to the source of Respondent’s website, which amounts to bad faith. Finally, MX servers are configured in the disputed domain name, which indicates a risk that Respondent potentially uses the disputed domain name to create an e-mail address, with the suffix “@diigitec.com” for deceiving purposes.<\/p>\n
Respondent:
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>",
"rights": "
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 Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "
Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown 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": "
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": [
"Dinant T.L. Oosterbaan"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2024-11-04 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": "
According to the evidence submitted by Complainant, Complainant is the owner of Swiss Trademark Registration nº P-486055 DIGITEC (word mark), registered on June 20, 2001. <\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"diigitec.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}