The Complainant is Pet Plan Ltd. of Guildford, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("United Kingdom"), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Michael Vanwert of Churchville, Pennsylvania, United States of America ("United States"). 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names and are registered with D, LLC. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on September 26, 2017. On September 26, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On September 26, 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 September 29, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 19, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on October 20, 2017.
The Center appointed Sir Ian Barker as the sole panelist in this matter on November 1, 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, which was founded in the United Kingdom in 1976, provides pet insurance for domestic and exotic pets both in the United Kingdom and in many other countries through licensees. It also provides insurance for pet-care professionals and a pet-finding service.
The Complainant has for 20 years operated under the name "Pet Plan" and offers a wide range of insurance products for anyone involved in pet care. It has won numerous awards for pet insurance.
The Complainant owns trademark registrations in various jurisdictions including every location where its policies are sold. Included are the following trademark registrations.
TRADEMARK
JURISDICTION/ TM OFFICE
REGISTRATION NUMBER
IO CLASS
REGISTRATION DATE
PET PLAN
United States
3161569
006, 016, 025, 036, 041
December 14, 2012
PETPLAN & design
United States
4524285
006, 016, 018, 035, 036, 041, 044
May 6, 2014
PETPLAN
United Kingdom
2052294
036
January 19, 1997
PETPLAN
United Kingdom
2222270
006, 016, 0215, 035, 036, 041
April 6, 2001
PETPLAN
United Kingdom
2645992
006, 016, 018, 035, 036, 041, 044
June 14, 2013
PETPLAN
European Union
000328492
036
October 16, 2000
PETPLAN
European Union
001511054
016, 025, 026, 035, 036, 041, 042
December 18, 2001
PETPLAN + design
European Union
011470465
006, 016, 018, 035, 036, 041, 044
July 12, 2013
There are many websites operated by the Complainant using the "pet plan" name. Its primary site is which receives some 400,000 hits per month.
The Complainant gave the Respondent no authority of any kind to reflect its trademarks in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has no affiliation with the Complainant whatsoever.
The disputed domain names were registered on March 22, 2017. The disputed domain names resolve to a website featuring links to third party websites, some of which compete with the Complainant. There are multiple links for "pet insurances" which is the Complainant's core business.
The Respondent ignored all three of the "cease and desist" letters sent to him on behalf of the Complainant. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademarks.
The disputed domain name is an instance of 'typosquatting', which involves a registered trademark being used in a domain name but with additional letters being added or with some letters being omitted or changed.
The practice of typosquatting has been condemned by many UDRP panels. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 1.9. See also Dow Jones & Company, Inc. and Dow Jones, L.P. v. Powerclick, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-1259 holding that the deliberate introduction of errors or changes does not render a disputed domain name any less confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
As for the disputed domain name , the full trademarked expression is stated with the addition of the generic term "now". This is not sufficient to overcome a finding of confusing similarity. See Pfizer Inc v. Intermeds, LTD/ John Velasquez, WIPO Case No. D2005-0153. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.
The Respondent has not shown that he comes within any of the situations envisaged by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. He has filed no Response.
The Complainant gave the Respondent no authority to reflect the Complainant's trademarks in the disputed domain names.
It must be inferred that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. At the time of registration of the disputed domain names in March 2017, the Complainant's trademark and reputation were well-known worldwide.
Typo-squatting is evidence of bad faith registration and use as many UDRP panelists have ruled.
Bad faith is also established by the fact of the Respondent's "click-through" website which contains links to competitors of the Complainant. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy has been demonstrated in that the Respondent 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 the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement or location of the website or of a product or service on the Respondent's website or location". SeePRL USA Holdings, Inc. v. LucasCobb,WIPO Case No. D2006-0162.
Moreover, the Respondent has ignored the Complainant's "cease and desist" letters which conduct is a factor in assessing bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to be entitled to a transfer of a domain name, a complainant shall prove the following three elements:
(i) The 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 domain name; and
(iii) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
To be successful, the Complainant must prove in this administrative proceeding that each of the aforesaid three elements is present (paragraph 4(a) of the Policy).
Generally, the submissions made by the Complainant as recorded above, correctly set out the legal situation as has been elaborated in many cases under the Policy. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. The addition of the generic word "now" does not diminish the confusion.
The disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. This is a case of typosquatting by the addition of extra letters to the trademark.
See WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.8 and 1.9, and the cases cited therein.
Consequently, Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant gave the Respondent no authority of any sort to reflect its trademarks in a domain name.
This fact and the circumstances of the present case satisfy paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy in the absence of any convincing evidence from the Respondent.
The Respondent could have claimed that one of the situations envisaged by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy applied to the registration of the disputed domain name, e.g., by invoking paragraph 4(c) of the Policy to the satisfaction of the Panel that one of its three provisions applied in this case. However, the Respondent has chosen not to do so, and the Complainant has met its burden. The Complainant's claim that it gave the Respondent no authority is not challenged by the Respondent.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case and the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The inference that the Respondent must have known of the Complainant and the fame of its pet insurance business at the time of registration of the disputed domain names in March 2017 is inescapable. The fact that the disputed domain names resolve to a website with links to competitors of the Complainant shows that inference to be obvious – not only at the time of registration – but thereafter.
The Respondent's tinkering with the Complainant's trademark by a) typosquatting and b) adding a generic word constitutes an attempt by the Respondent to profit from a reputation of the Complainant and its business. See, for a recent decision on this kind of conduct and the consequential finding of bad faith, B BV v. Chen Guo Long,WIPO Case No. D2017-0311.
The "click-through" website with links to competitors of the Complainant is evidence of the Respondent's bad faith and comes within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The failure of the Respondent to respond to the "cease and desist" letters strengthens the inference of bad faith.
Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is satisfied. 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 names, and be transferred to the Complainant.
Sir Ian Barker
Sole Panelist
Date: November 14, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy