The Complainant is Inventio AG of Hergiswil, Switzerland, internally represented.
The Respondent is VistaPrint Technologies Ltd of Hamilton, Bermuda, Bahamas. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 14, 2016. On April 14, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 14, 2016, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 22, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 12, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 13, 2016.
The Center appointed Adam Samuel as the sole panelist in this matter on May 24, 2016. 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 is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Schindler Holding AG, the parent company of the Schindler Group of companies which supplies elevators, escalators, moving walkways and related equipment. The Complainant owns a number of trademarks in a variety of countries for the name SCHINDLER, including a United States of America (“US”) trademark no. 1722463 which was registered on October 6, 1992. The Complainant’s sister companies promote their activities through a variety of domain names, notably which was first registered in 1996.
The disputed domain name was registered on July 29, 2015. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
These are the Complainant’s contentions with which the Panel may or may not agree.
The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark preceded by the letter “u” and followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.com”. The addition of “u” is either a misspelt abbreviation for the US where a number of the Complainant’s sister companies operate or is just a misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. One should ignore the “.com” suffix for the purposes of assessing whether a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark.
The Complainant has not licensed the Respondent to utilise or otherwise consented to the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s trademark SCHINDLER. The Respondent used the disputed domain name to launch a phishing attack on the Complainant’s US sister company on the day on which it registered the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent clearly knew about the Complainant’s group of companies when it registered the disputed domain name. This is apparent from the worldwide reputation of that group and the fact that on the day of registration, the Respondent sent an email purporting to be from the president of the US sister company of the Complainant to that sister company’s chief financial officer seeking a transfer of funds. This act in itself coming so soon after the disputed domain name’s registration shows that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
The Respondent has not replied to a cease-and-desist letter and a reminder to it which is also evidence of bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Under the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which it has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of the letter “u” followed by the Complainant’s trademark and the gTLD suffix “.com”. The addition of the extra letter does not detract from the fact that the dominant feature of the disputed domain name is the Complainant’s trademark. UDRP panels will typically ignore the gTLD in assessing whether a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark for the purposes of the Policy. The addition of the letter “u” does not add any new meaning to the Complainant’s trademark which is essentially a German-language family name or the word for a “shingle maker” in German.
For all these reasons, the Panel concludes the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not called “uschindler” or anything similar. There is no evidence that the Complainant has ever authorized the Respondent to use its trademarks. For these reasons, and in the absence of any response on this point, notably one contradicting the Complainant’s claim that the Respondent has never been connected to it in any way, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
On the day on which the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, an email was sent from the address “[Mr. Ergenbright]@” to “[Mr. Bickel]@us.” which read “I need to know if you can process out an international wire transfer today. Greg Ergenbright”. Mr. Ergenbright is the president and Mr. Bickel is the chief financial officer of a US sister company of the Complainant. The real Mr. Ergenbright has an email address ending “@us.” rather than “@”.
This provides ample evidence, not contradicted on file, that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to initiate the email scam described here. That constitutes registration and use in bad faith.
For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith for the purposes 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.
Adam Samuel
Sole Panelist
Date: June 1, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy