The Complainant is Caja de Seguros Reunidos, Compañía de Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A. of Madrid, Spain, represented by Alesci Naranjo Propiedad Industrial SL, Spain.
The Respondent is Tao Wei of Shangrao, Jiangxi, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
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 July 19, 2017. On July 19, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 19, 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. In response to a request of amendment by the Center, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 21, 2017.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 July 31, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 20, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on August 21, 2017.
The Center appointed Sok Ling MOI as the sole panelist in this matter on September 5, 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
Established in 1942, the Complainant is one of the largest insurance companies in Spain and a recognized market leader in the residential, home insurance market. It offers a range of insurance products to its clients through more than 10,000 points of sale in Spain. It reported a turnover of 1,631 million Euro in 2016.
According to the Complainant, CASER is the pseudo-acronym of the Complainant's corporate name, Caja de Seguros Reunidos. The Complainant uses CASER as a trade mark for its products and services. It has registered various trade marks incorporating term "caser" in Spain, including the following:
Jurisdiction
Trade Mark
Class
Registration No.
Registration Date
Spain
CASER
36
M2447345
July 5, 2002
Spain
CASER.COM
38
M2265387
May 5, 2000
Spain
CASER SEGUROS
16
M2855061
April 15, 2009
Spain
CASER DIRECT
35
M2696838
February 5, 2007
The Complainant is also the registered proprietor of numerous domain names incorporating its trade mark CASER, including the following:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The disputed domain name was registered on June 27, 2017. According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolves to a website with several links related to sexual images and gambling advertisements. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to its CASER trade mark. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order for the disputed domain name to be cancelled or transferred:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
On the basis of the arguments and evidence introduced by the Complainant, the Panel concludes as follows: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in CASER by virtue of its use and registration of the same as a trade mark.
The disputed domain name consists of an obvious misspelling of the Complainant's CASER trade mark, by including an extra "r" after the trade mark which otherwise incorporates the Complainant's trade mark in its entirety. The consensus view of previous UDRP panels is that a domain name which contains a common or obvious misspelling of a trade mark will normally be found to be confusingly similar to such trade mark, where the misspelled trade mark remains the dominant or principal component of the domain name. The disputed domain name is a foreseeable typographical variant of the Complainant's trade mark.
The slight typographical error (specifically, the addition of a single letter) is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's trade mark. The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com" does not impact the analysis of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark in this case.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's CASER trade mark.
Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant bears the burden of establishing that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, once the complainant makes a prima facie showing under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to establish its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by demonstrating any of the following, without limitation, under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy:
(i) before any notice to it of the dispute, the respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if it has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.
(See Taylor Wimpey PLC, Taylor Wimpey Holdings Limited v. honghao Internet foshan co, ltd,WIPO Case No. D2013-0974.)
The Complainant has confirmed that the Respondent is not in any way affiliated with the Complainant or otherwise authorized or licensed to use the CASER trade mark or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the CASER trade mark. The Respondent appears to be an individual by the name of Tao Wei. There is no evidence suggesting that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that the Respondent has any rights in the term "caser" or "caserr".
According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolves to a website with several links related to sexual images and gambling advertisements. The consensus view of previous UDRP panels is that use of a domain name to post parking and landing pages or pay-per-click links may be permissible in some circumstances, but would not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests arising from a "bona fide offering of goods or services" or from "legitimate noncommercial or fair use" of the domain name.
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The burden of production thus shifts to the Respondent to establish his rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Since the Respondent did not file a response to the Complaint and has thus failed to offer any explanation for his registration of the disputed domain name, the prima facie case has not been rebutted.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the second element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances which, without limitation, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a disputed domain name in bad faith, namely:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trade mark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the disputed domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent's website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the respondent's website or location.
The Panel accepts that the Complainant and its trade mark CASER alone or in combination with SEGUROS enjoy a strong reputation in Spain. The Complainant has claimed that its trade mark CASER is well-known both internationally and has an obvious online presence, and so it is impossible for the Respondent to be unaware of the existence of the Complainant and its trade mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name. In this regard, the Panel notes that although "caser" is an English word (albeit not so ordinary) with the possible meaning of (i) one who cases or works with casings (ii) one who applies casing to tobacco leaves, "caserr" does not appear to have any meaning in English. Yet, the Respondent has neither offered any explanation for its choice of the disputed domain name, nor denied the Complainant's allegations of bad faith.
In registering a disputed domain name that is a typographical variant of the Complainant's trade mark and domain name, the Respondent may be seeking to use them to offer sponsored links or redirect Internet users to websites offering other goods and services. In so doing, the Respondent will be depriving the Complainant of the opportunity to sell its goods and services to prospective clients who are clearly looking for the Complainant. An inference can therefore be drawn that the Respondent is engaging in an act of typo-squatting and has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website. As such, the Panel finds that the circumstances referred to in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy may be applicable to the present case.
According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolves to a website with several links related to sexual images and gambling advertisements. The consensus view of previous UDRP panels is that a domain name registrant is normally deemed responsible for content appearing on a website at its domain name, even if such registrant may not be exercising direct control over such content — for example, in the case of advertising links appearing on an "automatically" generated basis. The Panel notes the presumption that the Respondent or a third party stands to profit or make a "commercial gain" from advertising revenue by such an arrangement trading on third-party trade marks. In the Panel's opinion, such links clearly seek to capitalise on the trade mark value of the Complainant's CASER trade mark resulting in misleading diversion. The content appearing on the websites also serves to tarnish the Complainant's trade mark. Such use of the disputed domain name cannot be in good faith.
Furthermore, efforts to send written notice of the proceedings to the Respondent at the physical address provided by the Respondent to the Registrar (and in turn to the Center) failed, which suggests that the Respondent had probably provided false contact details.
In view of the above finding that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and taking into account all the circumstances, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the third element under paragraph 4(a) 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.
Sok Ling Moi
Sole Panelist
Date: September 22, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy