Complainant is Tumblr, Inc. of New York, New York, United States of America (the "US”), internally represented.
Respondent is Land Merchandising Inc. of Collierville, US. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Disputed Domain Name is registered with BigRock Solutions Pvt Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 1, 2013. On March 4, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On March 4, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent was listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the Disputed Domain Name.
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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 7, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 27, 2013. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 28, 2013.
The Center appointed Mark Partridge as the sole panelist in this matter on April 17, 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
Complainant is a well-known social media site and owner of trademark rights in the name and mark TUMBLR. The TUMBLR mark is the subject, inter alia, of United States Trademark Registration, Reg. No. 3,714,214, which constitutes prima facie evidence of nationwide trademark rights from the date of filing on October 27, 2008.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on February 8, 2008, after Complainant’s first use of the TUMBLR mark in February 2007. The Disputed Domain Name was used to redirect Internet users to an unrelated site with links to a commercial site promoting erectile dysfunction treatments. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is an example of typosquatting; that Respondent lacks any right or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name; and that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the TUMBLR mark owned by Complainant. The Disputed Domain Name is a classic example of typosquatting that relies on an easy keyboard mistake in substituting the letter “I” for the adjacent letter “U” on a qwerty keyboard.
The Panel finds in favor of Complainant on this element of its Complaint. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent is not authorized to use the TUMBLR mark; is not making bona fide use of the Disputed Domain Name for a non-infringing purpose; is not known by the “timblr” name; and is not using the name fairly for noncommercial comment or use. Instead, it appears the Disputed Domain Name is used to redirect Internet users to unrelated commercial sites for the financial benefit of Respondent.
Respondent has not rebutted these apparent facts.
The Panel finds in favor of Complainant on this element of its Complaint. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The record shows by a preponderance of evidence that the Disputed Domain Name was registered by Respondent as a deliberate act of typosquatting and is deliberately used in bad faith to mislead Internet users to an unrelated site for commercial gain.
Respondent has provided no good faith justification for its registration and use of the Dispute Domain Name, and none is suggested or colorable based on the record presented.
The Panel finds in favor of Complainant on this element of its Complaint. 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.
Mark Partridge
Sole Panelist
Date: May 13, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy