The Complainant is Radwell International, Inc. of Lumberton, New Jersey, United States of America (the “USA”), represented by Anthony H. Chwastyk, Esq, USA.
The Respondent is Lucien Seaforth of Brooklyn, New York, New York, USA. 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 January 6, 2015. On January 7, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 8, 2015, 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 January 27, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 16, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 17, 2015.
The Center appointed William F Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on February 23, 2015. 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 owns US trademark registrations for PLCCENTER.COM and PLCCENTER and the Community trademark registration for PLCCENTER (collectively, the “Marks”). The Complainant’s earliest registration dates back to 2006. The Complainant has operated the website “” since 2002. The Complainant sells industrial equipment and enjoys annual international sales in excess of USD 100,000,000.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain on December 17, 2013. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Marks because the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s Mark plus the suffix “s” and a different generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”). The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith as part of a fraudulent scheme whereby the Respondent masquerades as the Complainant to solicit purchases from the Complainant’s customers and third-party vendors. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel determines that the disputed domain name is confusing similar to the Complainant’s marks. Merely adding the generic letter “s” as a suffix does not avoiding confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s Marks. Nor does the change of the gTLD “.com” to “.org” alter the Panel’s determination that the disputed domain name is substantially similar to the Complainant’s Marks. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel determines that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Before becoming inactive, the Respondent’s website “www.” resolved to a commercial landing page offering a variety of unrelated click-through links to various third-party commercial websites. There is no evidence of any bona fide business conducted by the Respondent in connection with the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Complainant specifically disclaims providing the Respondent with any authorization to use the Complainant’s Marks or the disputed domain name. Lastly, the Respondent has failed to come forth with any evidence showing any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel determines that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bath faith. The Complainant has submitted copies of fraudulent emails utilizing the disputed domain name as the sender’s address. These emails were addressed to Complainant’s business customers in an apparent effort to create the impression that the emails emanated from the Complainant. The Respondent’s utilization of the disputed domain name to facilitate a fraudulent and deceptive scheme supports the Panel’s finding that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, as per paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. 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.
William F Hamilton
Sole Panelist
Date: March 9, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy