The Complainant is Minerva S.A. of Barretos, São Paulo, Brazil, represented by Opice Blum, Brazil.
The Respondent is El Yanko of Lanham, Maryland, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name ("the Domain Name") is registered with D, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on April 5, 2018. On April 6, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 6, 2018, 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 April 13, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 3, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on May 8, 2018.
The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on May 18, 2018. 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 is the owner of the trade mark MINERVA filed January 21, 2004 and registered on December 5, 2017 in Brazil for food products including meat.
The Domain Name registered on December 26, 2017 has been used for an attempted fraudulent email scam. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark MINERVA filed January 21, 2004 and registered on December 5, 2017 in Brazil for food products including meat.
The Domain Name registered December 26, 2017 contains the Complainant's trade mark MINERVA and the Portuguese word "grupo" meaning the generic word "group" and so is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark.
The Domain Name has been used to send unrequested communication and fake invoices to the Complainant's customers.
The Respondent is not known by the Domain Name and is not authorised to use the Complainant's mark by the Complainant. Use of the Domain Name for fraud cannot be bona fide or a legitimate noncommercial fair use.
Clearly the Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith for fraud with obvious knowledge of the Complainant and its business. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name consists of the Complainant's MINERVA trade mark (registered in Brazil for, inter alia, meat on December 5, 2017), the Portuguese word "grupo" with the generic meaning "group" and the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com". Adding such a generic word and a gTLD does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's MINERVA mark which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name.
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose of the Policy to a mark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name.
The Domain Name has been used in a fraudulent email scheme using the Complainant's name and logo. This is deceptive and confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
As such the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. C. Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Impersonating a complainant by use of a complainant's mark in a fraudulent email scam is disruptive and evinces bad faith registration and use.
Further, in the opinion of the Panel the use made of the Domain Name and the Complainant's name and logo in relation to an email scam is confusing in that recipients of the emails may reasonably believe those emails are connected to or approved by the Complainant. This mimicking by the Respondent of the Complainant shows that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its business and rights. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of electronic content on the Internet under paragraph, Policy 4(b)(iv).
As such, the Panel believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and
4(b)(iv). There is no need to consider any additional grounds of 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.
Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: May 30, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy