Complainant is easyGroup IP Licensing Limited of South Kensington, London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented by Stephenson Harwood, United Kingdom.
Respondent is Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service Inc. of Nobby Beach, Queensland, Australia / Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft of Kingstown Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 12, 2014. On March 12, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 13, 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 March 18, 2014 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 26, 2014.
The Center verified that 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 28, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 17, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 24, 2014.
The Center appointed Lawrence K. Nodine as the sole panelist in this matter on May 2, 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
EasyJet PIc was established in 1995. It is currently the second largest budget airline in Europe. Complainant owns the registered trademarks used by Easyjet Plc in its business
Complainant owns numerous EASYJET Community trademarks some of which are:
EASYJET Reg. No. 001232909 filed July 1, 1999;
EASYJET.COM Reg. No.001593326 filed on March 31, 2000; and
EASYJET.COM and Design Reg. No.001984079 filed on November 22, 2000.
The disputed domain name was registered on April 11, 2005. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant alleges that it has trademark rights in the EASYJET mark as evidenced by it numerous registrations, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark, and that the misspelling of the disputed domain name could be a result of a typographical error.
Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name since Respondent has not provided evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Specifically, the site includes click through links that link to competitors, most notably Ryanair, Complainant’s main competitor. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Given Complainant’s trademark registrations the Panel finds that Complainant has trademark rights in the EASYJET mark. The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name is nearly identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s EASYJET mark since it incorporates Complainant’s entire registered trademark with the addition of the extra letter “R” which is manifest intentional typosquatting. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
A complainant need only make a prima facie showing on this element, at which point the burden shifts to respondent to present evidence that it has some rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 2.1. The ultimate burden of proof, however, remains with complainant. Id. Vicar Operating, Inc. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Eklin Bot Systems, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2010-1141.
The Panel finds that the above contentions establish a prima facie showing that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Moreover, Respondent has not rebutted such a prima facie showing and therefore Complainant has succeeded with respect to this Policy element. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent likely knew of Complainant’s rights when it registered the disputed domain name in 2005. The Panel also finds bad faith use. Respondent’s flagrant typosquatting is evidence of both bad faith registration and use, namely of an intentional effort to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion. Funix B.V. v. Domain Administrator,WIPO Case No. D2009-1048. It is also bad faith use to include sponsored advertisements linking to competitors. 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
Date: May 18, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy