The Complainant is Intertrust Intellectual Property Group Holding S.A. of Geneva, Switzerland, represented by Merkenbureau Knijff & Partners B.V., the Netherlands.
The Respondent is Felicia Bonds of Peoria, Wyoming, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with AlpNames Limited (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 15, 2017. On February 15, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 16, 2017, 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 February 23, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 15, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 16, 2017.
The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on March 21, 2017. 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 provides consulting and other services in relation to financial management, the protection of intellectual property and other matters. The Complainant owns trademarks in a variety of countries and jurisdictions for INTERTRUST, including a Benelux trademark Registration No. 0467460, registered on May 1, 1990, and International trademark Registration No. 1036983, registered on December 10, 2009.
The Domain Name was registered on October 24, 2016, and does not resolve to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant provides trademark registrations, and submits that its trademark is well known. The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and trade name. The first and most distinctive element “intertrust” is identical to the Complainant’s trademark and identical to the most important part of its trade name.
The Complainant argues further that the Respondent seems to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. There is no evidence of 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. The Respondent is, as far as the Complainant is aware, not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor is the Respondent making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. The Domain Name does not resolve to an active website.
As to bad faith, the Complainant argues, inter alia, that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of the registration of the Domain Name. The Respondent is disrupting the business of the Complainant. The Complainant is not able to register or use the Domain Name which corresponds to its registered rights. The public can easily be confused by the Domain Name, since it contains the registered trademark and trade name of the Complainant. It is also an indication of bad faith that the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter of November 29, 2016. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has rights in its trademark.
The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s trademark INTERTRUST, with the term “group” added. The addition does not dispel any confusing similarity.
For the purpose of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.info”.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register a domain name containing its trademark or otherwise make use of its mark. Based on the evidence, the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way, and the Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Respondent is not generally known by the Domain Name, and has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights in that name.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted prima facie case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that the Respondent was likely to have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark and its business when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. Despite having no authorization to do so, the Respondent registered the Domain Name, clearly incorporating the Complainant’s INTERTRUST trademark. Moreover, the Domain Name does not resolve to an active website and the Respondent has not responded to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter, nor to the Complaint. Any future use of the Domain Name by the Respondent would likely only have the effect of confusing Internet users.
For the reasons set out above, in particular the lack of any explanation from the Respondent and the Respondent’s passive holding of the Domain Name, the Panel concludes on the balance of probabilities that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of the paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: March 24, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy