The Complainant is Corker Binning of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("United Kingdom"), represented by Taylor Wessing, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Mena Dre of Evergreen, Colorado, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on November 8, 2017. On November 8, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 9, 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 for clarification by the Center, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 10, 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 November 13, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 3, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on December 4, 2017.
The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on December 15, 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, a London law firm, has traded under the name "Corker Binning" since 2011.
The disputed domain name was registered on February 5, 2017.
Starting on February 7, 2017, the disputed domain name was used as an email address in a number of emails which impersonated the Complainant in connection with an attempted fraudulent transfer of funds. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
A summary of the Complainant's contentions is as follows.
The Complainant has acquired a substantial reputation as a leading law firm for specialist criminal, fraud and regulatory work and has developed a high profile in the media. The Complainant therefore possesses unregistered rights in its name.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark, differing only by a slight misspelling.
The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. The website at the disputed domain name is inactive but the disputed domain name has been used in connection with an attempted email scam, which also constitutes registration and use in bad faith. 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 unregistered trade mark rights in the mark Corker Binning for the purposes of the Policy, by virtue of its extensive use of that distinctive name.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark. It is a misspelling thereof, differing only by omission of a letter "n".
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
As explained in section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), the consensus view is that, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If not, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.
The disputed domain name has been used to impersonate the Complainant in connection with an attempted email scam. Plainly this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. Nor do paragraphs 4(c)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy apply.
The Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the Complainant has therefore established the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Given the evidence of use of the disputed domain name for a fraudulent purpose, the Panel readily concludes that it was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the third element of 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.
Adam Taylor
Sole Panelist
Date: December 21, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy