WIPO Domain Name Decision D2019-1048 for curalin.net
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION CuraLife LTD v. Domain Protection Services, Inc. / Robert Anderson Case No. D2019-1048 1. The Parties
The Complainant is CuraLife LTD, Israel, represented by Ariel Dubinsky Law Office, Israel.
The Respondent is Domain Protection Services, Inc., United States of America (“United States”) / Robert Anderson, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with N, Inc. (N LLC) (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 7, 2019. On May 8, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On May 8, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 10, 2019, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on May 11, 2019.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 May 14, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 3, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 4, 2019.
The Center appointed Nicholas Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on June 13, 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 an Israeli company, founded in 2013 that develops and markets dietary supplements, including a product sold under the word mark “curalin” (the “CURALIN Mark”). The Complainant’s Curalin product has been sold since 2013 and is sold in over 40 countries around the world.
The Complainant is the owner of a trademark registration for the CURALIN Mark in the United States of America applied for on October 3, 2017 and registered on May 22, 2018 (registration number 5474507) for dietary supplements in class 5 with a first use in commerce of November 1, 2013.
The Domain Name was registered on July 18, 2017. The Domain Name is presently inactive but prior to the commencement of the proceeding resolved to a website (“the Respondent’s Website”) that purported to offer a dietary supplements sold under the CURALIN Mark. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant makes the following contentions:
(i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CURALIN Mark;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights nor any legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant is the owner of the CURALIN Mark, having registered the CURALIN Mark in the United States. The Domain Name is identical to the CURALIN Mark.
There are no rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name nor does the Respondent have any authorization from the Complainant to register the Domain Name. The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. Rather the Respondent is using the Domain Name to resolve to a website that sells a good competing with the Complainant under the same mark as the Complainant.
The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. By using the Domain Name to resolve to a website that offers competing goods, the Respondent is using the Domain Name to divert Internet users searching for the Complainant to their own website for commercial gain. Such conduct amounts to registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights and the Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade or service mark.
The Complainant is the owner of the CURALIN Mark, having a registration for the CURALIN Mark as a trademark in the United States. Disregarding the “.net” generica Top-Level Domain as an essential element of any domain name, the Domain Name is identical to the CURALIN Mark. Consequently, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
To succeed on this element, a complainant must make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If such a prima facie case is made out, then the burden of production shifts to the respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the domain