The Complainant is Delta Dental Plans Association of Oak Brook, Illinois, United States of America (“United States”) represented by Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg, United States.
The Respondent is Kevin Mao of Zhengzhou, Henan, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 21, 2017. On June 22, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On June 23, 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 June 27, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 17, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 18, 2017.
The Center appointed Isabel Davies as the sole panelist in this matter on July 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 has continuously used the name “delta dental” since the 1960s in relation to the provision of dental and vision benefits and services.
The Complainant is the owner of various trademarks for or incorporating “delta dental” registered at the United States Patent and Trademark Office between 1993 and 2008 and is also the owner of trademarks for DELTA DENTAL in China (together the “DELTA DENTAL Marks”), and several generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) names including registered in 1995.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on April 13, 2017. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a parking page website with various links to third-party websites. 5. Parties’ Contentions A Complainant
The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights
The Complainant states that, as a result of its efforts to promote and market its services under its DELTA DENTAL Marks, and by virtue of the resulting popularity of the Complainant’s services, the Complainant’s services provided under the DELTA DENTAL Marks have generated many millions of dollars of sales on an annual basis, and the DELTA DENTAL name and DELTA DENTAL Marks have become known to consumers nationwide as symbolizing the Complainant as a source of high-quality dental and vision benefits and services.
The Complainant also states that, as a result of its long-standing and extensive use and promotion of its DELTA DENTAL Marks both on the Internet and by more traditional means, the marks have acquired worldwide distinctiveness and consumer recognition.
The Complainant states that in or about April 2017, it became aware of the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name. Based upon the Complainant’s investigation, the Respondent has been using the
Disputed Domain Name as a parked page offering what appear to be sponsored links.
It states that the Respondent has made no bona fide offering of goods or services on the “www.” website. Instead, the website provides links to travel services and is diverting users from the Complainant’s website and generating click revenue for the Respondent. As such, the Complainant submits, the Respondent has simply registered the Disputed Domain Name and is operating it as a parked page offering sponsored links to divert Internet users from the Complainant’s websites.
The Complainant states that on April 28, 2017, it sent a letter to the Respondent via email and certified mail, requesting that the Respondent immediately and permanently cease any and all use, advertising and promotion of the DELTA DENTAL Marks, including ceasing use of the Disputed Domain Name and requesting that the Respondent assign and transfer any rights the Respondent has in it. The Respondent did not respond or comply with any of the Complainant’s demands. In an additional attempt to resolve the matter amicably, the Complainant sent a follow up letter to the Respondent on May 12, 2017, reiterating the above demands by attaching the April 28, 2017 letter.
The Complainant states that it believes that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with an intent to confuse the public as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the website “www.”, and to trade upon the significant goodwill and extensive promotional efforts associated with the Complainant’s DELTA DENTAL Marks in violation of the Policy.
The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s DELTA DENTAL Marks because it intentionally uses a spelling variation of the DELTA DENTAL mark. The objective is to take advantage of Internet users’ mistyping the DELTA DENTAL mark when trying to access Delta Dental Plans Association’s websites. This practice, the Complainant states, is known as “typosquatting” and has been condemned in many UDRP panel decisions. Specifically, the Complainant submits, the Disputed Domain Name simply omits the letter “e” in word “dental” of the DELTA DENTAL mark. The resulting name “deltadntal” keeps the same pronunciation as the original mark. The Disputed Domain Name therefore is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s DELTA DENTAL Marks.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name
The Complainant submits that the Respondent cannot establish a right to, or legitimate interest in, the Disputed Domain Name, has no legitimate business relating to or incorporating the DELTA DENTAL mark or the term “deltadntal,” and has no identifiable history of using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant states that it is well-established that the mere registration of a domain name does not create rights in the name, and that such rights can arise only through the bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Complainant also states that the Respondent does not own a United States, European Union or International trademark registration for the term “deltadental”. In addition, the Complainant has never licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent’s use of its DELTA DENTAL Marks.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name because he is not referred to or commonly known as . Furthermore, the Complainant contends, the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. To the contrary the Respondent is merely using the Complainant’s DELTA DENTAL Marks in the Disputed Domain Name to divert Internet users from the Complainant’s websites and has made no bona fide offering of goods or services on the “www.” website. Rather, the Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name and is parking it, with the current web pages to which “www.” resolve including links to travel services.
In view of the foregoing, as well as the fact that the DELTA DENTAL Marks have achieved widespread recognition amongst consumers, the Complainant believes that the Respondent would not have chosen the Disputed Domain Name unless it intended to confuse consumers and disrupt the Complainant’s business.
Accordingly, the Complainant submits that it has established that the Respondent cannot assert a right to, or legitimate interest in, the Disputed Domain Name.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith
The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith and with full knowledge of the Complainant’s DELTA DENTAL Marks. Given the widespread recognition of the Complainant’s mark and, as the Respondent is not known under the mark, it is not credible that the Respondent innocently registered the Disputed Domain Name without having an intent to exploit its confusing similarity to the Complainant’s DELTA DENTAL Marks and websites.
Even if the Respondent were disingenuously to claim ignorance of the Complainant’s DELTA DENTAL Marks, the Complainant contends, the Respondent was put on constructive notice of the Complainant’s rights in its DELTA DENTAL Marks prior to registering the Disputed Domain Name, by virtue of the Complainant’s trademark registrations. Thus, the Complainant contends, the Respondent indisputably registered and commenced use of the Disputed Domain Name with knowledge of the Complainant’s prior use of the DELTA DENTAL Marks in order to capitalize, benefit from, and trade upon the reputation and goodwill that had long been established by the Complainant in the DELTA DENTAL Marks.
The Complainant therefore submits that the Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith by intentionally adopting a domain name that uses a spelling variation, which is likely to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s DELTA DENTAL Marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Disputed Domain Name and by intentionally seeking to benefit by trading upon the valuable goodwill of the Complainant and its widely recognized DELTA DENTAL Marks.
The Respondent’s bad faith is further illustrated, the Complainant submits, by the Disputed Domain Name’s resolution to web pages containing pay-per-click links that redirect Internet users to third-party websites.
The Complainant therefore submits that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s DELTA DENTAL Marks; that the Respondent has no legitimate interests or rights in it and that it was registered in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
The Policy establishes three elements, specified in paragraph 4(a) that must be established by the Complainant to obtain relief. These elements are:
(i) The Disputed Domain Name is 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 Name;
(iii) The Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Each of these elements will be addressed below.
The Complainant must establish these elements even if the Respondent does not reply (see The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Lorna Kang,WIPO Case No. D2002-1064). However, under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel is entitled to draw such inferences as it considers appropriate from a Party’s failure to comply with any provision of or requirement under, the Rules, including the Respondent’s failure to file a Response.
In the absence of a Response, the Panel may also accept as true the reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint (see ThyssenKrupp USA, Inc. v. Richard Giardini,WIPO Case No. D2001-1425 (citing Talk City, Inc. v. Michael Robertson,WIPO Case No. D2000-0009)).
Paragraph 15 of the Rules provides that the Panel is to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. As the proceeding is an administrative one, the Complainant bears the onus of proving its case on the balance of probabilities. The Complainant must therefore establish all three of the elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy on the balance of probabilities before a decision can be made to cancel or transfer the Disputed Domain Name. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the DELTA DENTAL name and DELTA DENTAL Marks have become known to consumers in the United States and internationally as symbolizing the Complainant as a source of high-quality dental and vision benefits services.
The Panel accepts that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s DELTA DENTAL Marks because it intentionally uses a spelling variation of the DELTA DENTAL mark and that the objective is to take advantage of Internet users mistyping the DELTA DENTAL mark when trying to access Delta Dental Plans Association’s websites, i.e., “typosquatting”. This issue was also dealt with in Volvo Trademark Holding AB v. Unasi, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2005-0556 (finding is confusingly similar to the VOLVO trademark due to typosquatting).
The Panel accepts that the Disputed Domain Name simply omits the letter “e” in word “dental” of the DELTA DENTAL mark. The resulting name “deltadntal” keeps the same pronunciation as the original mark.
The Panel therefore finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s DELTA DENTAL Marks. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel accepts that in or about April 2017, the Complainant became aware of the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name and found that the Respondent has been using the Disputed Domain Name as a parked page offering what appear to be sponsored links. The Panel accepts that the Respondent has made no bona fide offering of goods or services and that, instead, the website provides links to travel services and is diverting interest from DELTA DENTAL and generating click revenue for the Respondent.
The Panel accepts that the Respondent cannot establish a right to, or legitimate interest in, the Disputed Domain Name and that the Respondent has no legitimate business relating to or incorporating the DELTA DENTAL mark or the term “deltadntal”, nor any identifiable history of using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services. It is well-established that the mere registration of a domain name does not create rights in the name, and that such rights can arise only through the bona fide offering of goods or services. See Educational Testing Service v. TOEFL,WIPO Case No. D2000-0044.
The Panel accepts that the Respondent has not used the term “deltadntal” in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services. Where, as here, a respondent infringes a complainant’s mark by attempting to attract users to its site by creating confusion, such conduct “precludes a finding that [the] respondent [is] making a ‘bona fide offering of goods and services.’” UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC. V. G.A.B. ENTERPRISES,WIPO Case No. D2000-0416.
The Panel accepts that the Respondent does not own a United States, European Union, or International trademark registration for the term “deltadental” and that the Complainant has never licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent’s use of its DELTA DENTAL Marks.
The Panel also accepts that the Respondent also has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name because he is not referred to or commonly known as .
Also it is accepted that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name but is merely using the Complainant’s DELTA DENTAL Marks to divert Internet users from the Complainant’s websites, and has made no bona fide offering of goods or services on the “www.” website but has registered the Disputed Domain Name and is parking it, with the current web pages to which “www.” resolves including links to travel services. An earlier Panel has found that use of a domain name which resolves to a parked page and ostensibly diverts interest in another’s mark and generates click revenue for the owner is not a legitimate use under the Policy, and in fact is evidence of bad faith. Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. PrivacyP Domain Admin / Trade Out Investments Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2011-1522.
The Panel accepts that the Respondent would not have chosen the Disputed Domain Name unless it intended to confuse consumers and disrupt the Complainant’s business.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the Respondent cannot assert a right to, or legitimate interest in, the Disputed Domain Name. See Drexel University v. David Brouda,WIPO Case No. D2001-0067 (“rights or legitimate interest cannot be created where the user of the domain names at issue would not choose such a name unless he was seeking to create an impression of association with the complainant”). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel accepts that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith and with full knowledge of the Complainant’s DELTA DENTAL Marks. Given the widespread recognition of the Complainant’s mark and that the Respondent is not known under the mark, it is not credible that the Respondent innocently registered the Disputed Domain Name without having an intent to exploit its confusing similarity to the Complainant’s DELTA DENTAL Marks and websites.
As the Respondent has failed to respond to the complaint, there is no rebuttal of the Complainant’s claim that the Respondent was put on constructive notice of the Complainant’s rights in its DELTA DENTAL Marks prior to registering the Disputed Domain Name by virtue of the Complainant’s trademark registrations.
Accordingly, the Panel accepts that the Respondent registered and commenced use of the Disputed Domain Name with knowledge of the Complainant’s prior use of the DELTA DENTAL Marks in order to capitalize, benefit from, and trade upon the reputation and goodwill that had long been established by the Complainant in the DELTA DENTAL Marks.
The Panel accepts that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with an intent to confuse the public as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the websites and to trade upon the goodwill and extensive promotional efforts associated with the Complainant’s DELTA DENTAL Marks.
The Panel also accepts that the Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith by intentionally adopting a domain name that uses a spelling variation, which is likely to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s DELTA DENTAL Marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Disputed Domain Name and that the Respondent is intentionally seeking to benefit by trading upon the valuable goodwill of the Complainant and its widely recognized DELTA DENTAL Marks.
The Panel accepts that the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith is illustrated by the Disputed Domain Name’s resolution to web pages containing pay-per-click links that redirect Internet users to third-party websites. See AltaVista Company v. Andrew Krotov,WIPO Case No. D2000-1091(finding bad faith where the respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that offered services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes).
The Panel accordingly finds that the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. 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.
Isabel Davies
Sole Panelist
Date: July 28, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy