The Complainant is Tumblr, Inc. of New York, United States of America, represented internally.
The Respondent is Fundacion Private Whois / PPA Media Services, Ryan G Foo of Panama and Santiago, Chile, respectively. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with I Corp. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 1, 2013. On the same date, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 5, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 6, 2013 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 March 8, 2013.
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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 12, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 1, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 2, 2013.
The Center appointed Michael J. Spence as the sole panelist in this matter on April 12, 2013. 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 operates a “social sharing platform and media network” under the trade mark TUMBLR and has done so since 2007. It ranks in the top 15 such web sites in terms of its reach. The Complainant’s trade mark TUMBLR was registered on November 24, 2009, applied for on October 27, 2008 and was first used in commerce on February 19, 2007.
The disputed domain name was registered on December 6, 2008. The Respondent uses the disputed domain name to operate a web site that closely resembles that of the Complainant, the purpose of which seems to be to elicit personal information from Internet users. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trade mark TUMBLR; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that it has been registered, or is being used, in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's trade mark, save for the omission of one letter. Given that the Complainant’s trade mark is an invented word, this degree of similarity is very likely to give rise to confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trade mark. In the Panel’s view, there can be no doubt that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark TUMBLR.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
It is for the Complainant to establish, at least prima facie, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455; Beluppo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o., WIPO Case No. D2004-0110).
In this case, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a web site with the apparent purpose of collecting personal information about Internet users, encouraging them to divulge that information with the promise of free products. Such use, without more, and given the strong likelihood of consumer confusion in this case, cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services such as to give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Given the very real similarity of the Respondent's web site to that of the Complainant, given that the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trade mark vary by only one letter, and given that the Complainant's trade mark is an invented word, this case appears to be one involving the practice of typosquatting. Typosquatting is a classic case of registration and use in bad faith (See also Tumblr, Inc. v. 黄素芬 (Huang Sufen),WIPO Case No. D2013-0146)
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name. 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 the Complainant.
Michael J. Spence
Sole Panelist
Date: April 19, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy