WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION DocuSign, Inc. v. Traffic CPMiPV, Maria Carter Case No. D2010-0344 1. The Parties
Complainant is DocuSign, Inc., of Seattle, Washington, United States of America, represented internally.
Respondent is Traffic CPMiPV, Maria Carter of Guam, Unincorporated Territory of the United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 5, 2010. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on March 6, 2010. On March 8, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 10, 2010, Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 16, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 5, 2010. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent's default on April 6, 2010.
The Center appointed Lawrence K. Nodine as the sole panelist in this matter on April 12, 2010. 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
Complainant provides electronic signature services via the Internet under its DOCUSIGN mark.
Complainant owns two United States (U.S.) trademark registrations, Registration No. 2,845,169 for the trademark DOCUSIGN in Class 09 and Registration No. 2,939,871 for the service mark DOCUSIGN in multiple classes, including 38, 39, and 42, since at least 2004.
Respondent registered the domain name on February 25, 2010. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
With respect to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant alleges that:
Complainant's domain name and the disputed domain name share all attributes except that the disputed domain name contains an extra “s” after the third letter.
Complainant has registered rights to the DOCUSIGN trademark by virtue of its United States registrations.
With respect to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, Complainant alleges that:
Respondent has no rights to the DOCUSIGN marks and has used the domain name in bad faith as evidenced by the fact that the disputed domain name resolved at one time to an identical home page as the one found at Complainant's “” website.
Respondent has used the disputed domain name to intentionally confuse and defraud visitors intending to visit Complainant's website at “”. Respondent has misappropriated copyrighted and trademarked material to create a “scraped” site that looked identical to Complainant's home page.
With respect to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, Complainant alleges that:
Respondent has used the disputed domain name to intentionally confuse and defraud visitors intending to visit . Respondent has misappropriated copyrighted and trademarked material to create a “scraped” site that looks identical to Complainant's home page. This makes it likely that Respondent obtained the disputed domain name in order to disrupt the business of Complainant. Visitors to the site at the disputed domain name have called and written to Complaint complaining that the site contained inappropriate requests for personal information. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to the Policy, Complainant is required to prove the presence of each of the following three elements to obtain the relief it has requested: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. (Policy, paragraph 4(a).)
Because Respondent is in default, the Panel may draw negative inferences as it deems appropriate from Respondent's default (Rules, paragraph 14(b)), the Panel may accept as true the reasonable factual allegations stated within the Complaint and amended Complaint, and may draw appropriate inferences from them, see Worldwide Pants Inc. v. VisionLink Communications Group, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2008-1796 and paragraph 5(e) of the Rules (If a respondent does not submit a response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the complaint.) A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has trademark rights in the mark DOCUSIGN evidenced by the existence of the aforementioned U.S. registrations, namely, Registration Nos. 2,845,169 and 2,939,871.
The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is likely to be confused with Complainant's DOCUSIGN trademark because it nearly incorporates Complainant's entire trademark. It differs from Complainant's registered DOCUSIGN mark only in that it contains an extra “s” after the first syllable “doc” and in the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com”. The addition of the extra “s” in the disputed domain name represents typosquatting. This close misspelling renders the disputed domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark. AltaVista Company v. Saeid Yomtobian,WIPO Case No. D2000-0937 (holding that the domain names and are confusingly similar to trademark ALTA VISTA). Further, the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is without legal significance when comparing the disputed domain name to Complainant's registered trademark. The Forward Association, Inc., v. Enterprises Unlimited, NAF Claim No. 95491 (“[N]either the beginning of the URL (http://www.), nor the TLD (.com) have any source indicating significance.)
Therefore, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has rights in violation of the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
With respect to 4(c)(i) of the Policy, there is no evidence that Respondent, before any notice of the dispute, used or prepared to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. In fact, the resulting website at the time of filing was identical to that of Complainant's website found at “”, including the use of Complainant's stylized DOCUSIGN mark. This is not a legitimate use within the meaning of the Policy.
With respect to 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, there is no evidence that indicates that Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name. There is no evidence presented by Respondent that it was licensed or otherwise permitted to use Complainant's trademark or to apply for any domain name incorporating the mark. There is no evidence of a relationship between Complainant and Respondent.
With respect to 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, Respondent has not made and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, and has not used the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. On the contrary, Complainant alleges that its consumers have experienced actual confusion, indicating that persons who have visited Respondent's website complained to Complainant about certain content on Respondent's website. Therefore, the Panel finds it is likely that an Internet user that accessed the disputed domain name would have mistakenly believed that the resulting website was either endorsed, affiliated or sponsored by Complainant.
A complainant is required to make out an initial prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of rebutting this prima facie case and demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Morgan Freeman v. Mighty LLC,WIPO Case No. D2005-0263; see also Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o.,WIPO Case No. D2004-0110. The Panel finds that the aforementioned establishes the Complainant's prima facie showing that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Moreover, Respondent has not rebutted such prima facie showing. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainant's allegations of bad faith are uncontested. It is improbable that Respondent was unaware of Complainant's trademark rights when it registered the disputed domain name on February 25, 2010, a period more than six (6) years after Complainant began using the DOCUSIGN mark. Moreover, the fact that Respondent copied Complainant's website proves to the Panel that Respondent was aware of the DOCUSIGN mark and the domain name when it registered the disputed domain name.
The Panel also finds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name in conjunction with a website that contained, at the time of filing of the Complaint, an identical home page to that of Complainant is not only potentially in direct competition with Complainant's electronic signature services but, is likely fraudulent. Respondent's copying of Complainant's webpage indicates an intent to deceive or, at a minimum, act in bad faith with the intent for commercial gain. As such Respondent's conduct is covered by Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv): “by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”
For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name, be transferred to Complainant.
Lawrence K. Nodine
Sole Panelist
Dated: April 26, 2010
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy