The Complainant is CPA Global Limited of Jersey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented by Dawn Logan Keeffe, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Dre Dre of Naples, Florida, 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 April 18, 2018. On April 19, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 21, 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 30, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 20, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 22, 2018.
The Center appointed Jonas Gulliksson as the sole panelist in this matter on June 5, 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 an intellectual property asset management company, providing a range of software and legal administrative services to internal law departments/counsel and law firms.
The Complainant is the owner of several registered trademarks for the mark CPA GLOBAL, among others International Registration no. 992382 CPA GLOBAL, filed October 16, 2008, designated in inter alia the European Union and the United States of America for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 41, 42 and 45.
The disputed domain name was registered April 3, 2018 and resolves to an inactive website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant mainly alleges the following.
The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s trademark CPA GLOBAL. The disputed domain name also contains the additional letter “l”, which is an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s CPA GLOBAL trademark and is likely to be overlooked by anyone encountering the disputed domain name. This is particularly the case since the Complainant has utilised the domain name for a number of years as its primary website and it is likely that Internet users will mistakenly assume that the disputed domain name is the same as the Complainant’s domain.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not own any trademark rights to the CPA GLOBAL name, nor has it ever used the name CPA GLOBAL in good faith as a trademark. The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent. The Complainant has a substantial reputation within the intellectual property legal services marketing place. Accordingly, there is little doubt that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s use and reputation of its CPA GLOBAL trademark prior to registering the disputed domain name. By using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract customers of the Complainant, by utilising email addresses containing the disputed domain name so as to acquire information and financial payment from those customers by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source of those emails issued by the Respondent. This phishing exercise undertaken by the Respondent utilising the disputed domain name was commenced immediately following the registration of the disputed domain name on April 3, 2018. An abuse complaint was filed with the Registrar of the disputed domain name on April 15, 2018. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove all three of the following elements:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the proprietor of several trademark registrations for CPA GLOBAL, inter alia international registration no. 992382. The disputed domain name contains the trademark CPA GLOBAL in its entirety and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. It is well-established among UDRP panels that the gTLD is not distinguishing. The additional letter “l” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CPA GLOBAL trademark and that the first requirement of the Policy is fulfilled. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In cases when a respondent fails to present a response, the complainant is still required to make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not proven otherwise. The Panel therefore finds the requirements of the second element of the Policy fulfilled. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant is the proprietor of registered trademarks which predate the disputed domain name and it is not probable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant or its trademarks. The circumstances presented by the Complainant and the submitted supporting evidence regarding attempted phishing with use of the disputed domain name supports a finding of bad faith registration and use. The Panel therefore finds that the third requirement of the Policy is fulfilled. 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.
Jonas Gulliksson
Sole Panelist
Date: June 19, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy