The Complainant is the One Account Limited of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("UK"), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is PALUMBO Steve of Denver, Colorado, United States of America ("US") 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and are registered with NETIM SARL (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on June 23, 2014. On June 23, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 26, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 30, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 20, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on July 21, 2014.
The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on July 28, 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 A. Complainant
The Complainant is a company incorporated in the UK and the owner of registrations in several jurisdictions worldwide for the trade mark THE ONE ACCOUNT (the "Trade Mark"). The Complainant is also the owner of several domain names incorporating the Trade Mark, including and . B. Respondent
The Respondent is an individual apparently located in the US. C. The Disputed Domain Names
22 of the disputed domain names were registered on October 30, 2013 and the remaining 14 were registered on February 9, 2014. D. The Website at the Disputed Domain Names
The Complainant submits evidence that appears to show that the disputed domain names previously resolved to phishing websites which mimicked the Complainant's official website in order to fraudulently obtain financial information from the Complainant's customers (the "Websites"). 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant made the following submissions in the Complaint.
The Complainant has been using the Trade Mark since 2003 in respect of its flexible and offset mortgage services provided mainly in the UK and through the Internet.
The Respondent has deliberately engaged in typosquatting by registering the disputed domain names which are each deliberate misspellings of the Trade Mark.
The disputed domain names have been used by the Respondent fraudulently in respect of the Websites, which mimic the Complainant's official website, and are designed to phish for financial information in order to defraud the Complainant's customers.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Respondent is not affiliated with or authorised by the Complainant. The Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in respect of a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The disputed domain names have been registered and used in bad faith in order to set up the Respondent's phishing Websites. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Decision
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration which predate the dates of registration of the disputed domain names by over 10 years.
This is a classic typosquatting case whereby the Respondent has deliberately registered the disputed domain names, comprising misspellings of the Trade Mark and of the Complainant's domain name, in order to fraudulently capitalise on unsuspecting customers of the Complainant who inadvertently mistype the Complainant's domain name into Internet browsers.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark and holds that the Complaint fulfils the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of non-exhaustive circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a domain name:
(i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organisation) has been commonly known by the domain name even if the respondent has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.
There is no evidence that the Complainant has authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain names or to use the Trade Mark. The Complainant has prior rights in the Trade Mark which precede the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain names by over 10 years. The Panel finds on the record that there is therefore a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and the burden is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption.
The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain names or that the disputed domain names are used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the disputed domain names have been used in respect of an apparently sophisticated phishing scam.
There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names.
There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Panel therefore finds that the Complaint fulfils the second condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Pursuant to paragraphs 4(b)(ii) and 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, the following conduct amounts to registration and use of a domain name in bad faith on the part of a respondent:
"(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct"
"(iv) by using the disputed domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent's website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the respondent's website or location."
This is a clear-cut case of calculated and deliberate typosquatting apparently used to facilitate fraudulent phishing activities. The Panel therefore concludes that bad faith has clearly been made out, both under paragraphs 4(b)(ii) and 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and under the Panel's general discretion at large under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy.
For the foregoing reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names have been registered and used in bad faith. Accordingly, the third condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled. 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 names , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and be transferred to the Complainant.
Sebastian M.W. Hughes
Sole Panelist
Dated: August 11, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy