Complainant is Mötesplatsen I Norden AB of Varberg, Sweden, represented by Domain and Intellectual Property Consultants, DIPCON AB, Sweden.
Respondent is Above.Com Pty Ltd. of Beaumaris, Victoria, Australia/ Ready Asset, Nish Patel of Xiamen, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with A, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 3, 2014. On February 3, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 6, 2014, 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 Complainant on February 6, 2014, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on February 6, 2014.
The Center verified that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 7, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 27, 2014. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on February 28, 2014.
The Center appointed Sally M. Abel as the sole panelist in this matter on March 12, 2014. 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 owns two registered trademarks in Sweden: Registration No. 0381707 for MOTESPLATSEN.SE in Classes 38 and 45, with a registration date of June 22, 2006, and Registration No. 0411357 for MÖTESPLATSEN in Classes 38 and 45, with a registration date of June 4, 2010. Complainant has also owned and used the Internet domain name since 2001. Complainant is a Swedish limited liability company active the matchmaking business. The website at “www.” is one of the largest online dating sites in Sweden. Between December 2013 and January 2014, had 2,643,004 visits and 55,154,349 page views.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on April 4, 2012, without Complainant’s authorization. The disputed domain name expires on April 4, 2014. Complainant states that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to provide sponsored links to competitor services and pages related to Complainant’s field of online dating and matchmaking. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar, if not virtually identical to Complainant’s MÖTESPLATSEN and MOTESPLATSEN.SE marks, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, and that Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, and use as set forth above, constitutes bad faith registration and use. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Respondent has defaulted. Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules provides that the Panel may draw such inferences from a default as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel infers from Respondent’s silence that Complainant’s allegations are, in fact, correct. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MÖTESPLATSEN and MOTESPLATSEN.SE marks. Respondent has simply removed two letters (the first “s” and second “t”) from Complainant’s MÖTESPLATSEN mark in an attempt to take advantage of consumers attempting to find, access or use the domain name who mistype that domain name. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is no connection between Respondent and the term “moteplasen”. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Respondent’s selection of the disputed domain name 6 years after Complainant’s first cited trademark registration and Respondent’s diversion and misdirection of Internet users to its website in order to profit from the sale of advertising space to Complainant’s competitors constitute bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. Respondent intentionally and deliberately targeted Complainant’s trademark, and its associated goodwill, for commercial gain by confusing Internet users into believing that Respondent’s website is affiliated with, sponsored, or endorsed by Complainant (Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv)).
Moreover, the Panel is aware that Respondent is engaged in a pattern of typosquatting on known brands beyond Complainant’s, including LEGO Juris A/S v. A Domain Privacy / Nish Patel (Ready Asset) ,WIPO Case No. D2013-0261, , Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Nish Patel/A Domain Privacy,WIPO Case No. D2013-1127, , LEGO Juris A/S v. A Domain Privacy / Ready Asset, Nish Patel ,WIPO Case No. D2013-0114, and Atos IT Services UK Limited v. A Domain Privacy / Nish Patel, WIPO Case D2013-0655, . The Panel considers this further evidence of bad faith registration and use. 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.
Sally M. Abel
Sole Panelist
Date: March 26, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy