1.1.The Complainant is V.Ships Group Limited of St John's, Isle of Man, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("United Kingdom"), represented by Demys Limited, United Kingdom (the "Complainant").
1.2 The Respondent is VistaPrint Technologies Limited of Bermuda, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom (the "Respondent"). 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
2.1 The disputed domain names and (the Disputed Domain Names) are registered with Tucows Inc. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
3.1 The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on September 8, 2015. On September 8, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Names. On September 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 Respondent's contact details.
3.2 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").
3.3 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on September 17, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 7, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on October 8, 2015.
3.4 The Center appointed Ike Ehiribe as the sole panelist in this matter on October 16, 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
4.1 The Complainant in this administrative proceeding is a ship management company incorporated in 1984 and based in the United Kingdom. The Complainant is said to supply various marine services to the global shipping industry. The Complainant also manages a fleet of over 1,000 vessels and a crew roster of over 26,000. The Complainant registered the domain name in 1999 and is said to have since then used it continually for its online communications and for all its corporate internal and external email.
4.2 The Respondent in this administrative proceeding is VistaPrint Technologies Limited a company incorporated in Bermuda, which specializes in providing international print and electronic services to small business entities including the provision of web hosting and domain name registration services. According to the WhoIs extracts attached to this proceeding the Respondent created the Disputed Domain Name
on July 28, 2015 and the Disputed Domain Name on August 27, 2015. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
5.1 The Complainant is the registrant of Community Trademark Registration number 0003064268 for the term V.SHIPS filed on February 21, 2003 as is exhibited at Annex 9 attached to the Complaint. The Complainant therefore contends that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant argues that the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com" is wholly generic and therefore should be disregarded for the purposes of comparison with the Complainant's trademarks. With respect to the first Disputed Domain Name, , the only difference with the Complainant's mark is said to be the insertion of a hyphen between the letter "v" and the word "ships". As regards the second Disputed Domain Name, , the only difference is said to be the removal of the dot between the letter "v" and the word "ships" and the replacement of the letter "i" with the visually similar letter "l". The Complainant contends that the differences between the first and second Disputed Domain Names and the Complainant's mark are insignificant and that the Disputed Domain Names were intentionally registered as misleading typographical variants of the Complainant's mark in order as to commit fraud.
5.2 The Complainant also submits that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names and in support draws attention to paragraph 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0") which in the main compels the Complainant to make out a prima facie case to demonstrate that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. To this end, the Complainant asserts that it has not found any evidence suggesting that the Respondent has been commonly known as "V.Ships", "V-Ships" or "Vshlps" or that the Respondent is a licensee of the Complainant or has obtained permission from the Complainant to use its trademark or company name. The Complainant further contends that it has not found any evidence that demonstrates that the Respondent owns any trademarks incorporating the term V.Ships, V-Ships or Vshlps. Therefore the Complainant argues that the Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Names cannot be construed as legitimate noncommercial or fair use given the use of the Disputed Domain Names for attempted fraud.
5.3 On the question of registration and bad faith use the Complainant refers to two exhibited emails at Annexes 4 and 5 attached to the Complaint to demonstrate that the Respondent was attempting to use both Disputed Domain Names for fraudulent purposes. The Complainant in this regard contends that the emails sent through the Disputed Domain Names purporting to come from the Complainant's Chief Executive Officer asking for the possibility of arranging bank transfer details are evidence of bad faith use. In addition the Complainant submits with reference to the screenshots exhibited at Annex 6 to the Complaint that both Disputed Domain Names are associated with parked websites, which in itself is also indicative of bad faith registration and use. The Complainant argues further that the Respondent has been a party to numerous other UDRP cases where the fraudulent use of domain names has come up for consideration, see for example Koc Holding A.S. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2015-0886. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
6.1 The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail, namely that:
i) the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names; and
iii) the Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.2 The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has long standing common law and or intellectual property rights in the trademark V.SHIPS evidenced partly by the Community Trademark Registration Certificate attached to the Complaint. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names namely and are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. The Panel finds that this is another clear case of typosquatting. The minor differences being the insertion of a hyphen in the first Disputed Domain Name, between the letter "v" and the word "ships", and the replacement of the letter "i" with the letter "l" in the second Disputed Domain Name and the addition of the gTLD ". com" to both Disputed Domain Names does absolutely nothing to prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Evidently, the Panel's direct comparison of the Disputed Domain Names with the Complainant's trademark shows that the Disputed Domain Names incorporates the dominant and significant aspects of the Complainant's trademark. See in this regard, KOC Holding A.S. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd., supra. In the circumstances the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
6.3 The Panel without any doubt finds that the Respondent has failed to adduce any evidence capable of demonstrating that it has any rights of legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names within the ambit of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. See in this regard Berlitz Investment Corp. v. Stefan Tinculescu,WIPO Case No. D2003-0465. As the Complainant asserts there is no evidence to demonstrate that the Respondent has ever been licensed or authorized by the Complainant to use the Complainant's trademark or register the Disputed Domain Names. In effect the Respondent has no affiliation whatsoever with the Complainant. The Panel therefore finds that as the Disputed Domain Names resolve to the Respondent's parking page and the said Disputed Domain Names have been used to send emails purporting to emanate from the Complainant's Chief Executive Officer, such usage or conduct cannot ever be described as a legitimate and noncommercial fair use of the Disputed Domain Names. See generally in this regard Oki Data Americas Inc.v. ASD Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0903. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
6.4 On the question of bad faith registration and use the Panel without any hesitation finds that the Respondent clearly registered the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith and continued to engage in bad faith use. In the first instance the Complainant has exhibited printouts of the Respondent's parked website to which the Disputed Domain Names resolve, which in the context of the circumstances in this case supports this finding without question. See Telestra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. In this regard on the basis that the passive holding of a disputed domain name would be considered as evidence of bad faith after taking into account other cumulative circumstances. Secondly and more significantly, the Respondent is recorded as having dispatched two emails through both the Disputed Domain Names on July 28, 2015 and August 27, 2015, respectively, purporting to have emanated from the Complainant's Chief Executive Officer and addressed to the Complainant's Chief Financial Officer. Both emails which the Complainant detected as fraudulent requested information regarding the arrangement of wire transfers. Thirdly, the Panel notes that the Respondent has been involved in numerous other UDRP disputes as the responding party. The Complainant has listed fourteen of such disputes arising for consideration between the years 2014 and 2015. The Panel therefore finds that this case is simply a continuation of a cause of conduct that the Respondent has grown accustomed to with impunity. Fourthly, the Panel finds that the Respondent's registration of the Disputed Domain Names was not accidental considering that the first Disputed Domain Name was registered on July 28, 2015 and on the same date an email enquiring into the arrangement of a wire transfer was dispatched to the Respondent. In the same vein following the Respondent's registration of the second Disputed Domain Name on August 27, 2015 a similar email was dispatched to the Respondent. Fifthly, the Panel draws adverse inferences from the failure of the Respondent to respond to this Complaint. In the circumstances the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established the essential requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision
7.1 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.
Ike Ehiribe
Sole Panelist
Date: October 30, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy