WIPO Domain Name Decision D2019-0839 for trowerprice.com
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. v. Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services Ltd Case No. D2019-0839 1. The Parties
The Complainant is T. Rowe Price Group, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Winterfeldt IP Group PLLC, United States.
The Respondent is Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services Ltd, Panama. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited dba Register Matrix (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 11, 2019. On April 12, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 16, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 25, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 15, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 16, 2019.
The Center appointed Gareth Dickson as the sole panelist in this matter on May 24, 2019. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., a United States corporation with its global headquarters in Baltimore, Maryland. It offers a range of global investment management products, tools, and services.
The Complainant has used the trade mark T. ROWE PRICE in the United States since 1937 and is also the owner of a number of trade mark registrations for T. ROWE PRICE including United States registration number 2785262, registered on November 25, 2003, and European Union trade mark number 002176642, registered on September 30, 2002 (the “Mark”).
The Domain Name was originally registered on August 6, 2004. The registrant changed in November 2008, February 2009, December 2011, February 2013, July 2014 and was acquired by the Respondent on July 16, 2018. It currently redirects Internet users to a website of a competitor of the Complainant, from which that competitor offers financial products and services that compete with the Complaint’s products and services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its T. ROWE PRICE mark since the only difference between it and the Domain Name are the absence of a “.” in the Domain Name, the insertion of the letter “r” in between “Rowe” and “Price” at the second level of the Domain Name, and the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) suffix “.com”. The Mark remains the dominant or principal component of the Domain Name and this is a classic case of typo-squatting.
The Complainant also submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name since it redirects Internet users to a website of a competitor offering visitors retirement and other financial services in competition with those offered by the Complainant, and does so via the services of web traffic monetisation platforms which likely generate pass-through fees for the Respondent and as such does not constitute a bona fide sale of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Furthermore, the Domain Name is listed for sale through a domain name marketplace.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has never been authorised by the Complainant to use the Mark, in any manner, and that the