Complainant is Arthur J. Glatfelter Agency, Inc. of York, Pennsylvania, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson, United States.
Respondent is Dina Carden of Marshall, North Carolina, United States. 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 June 1, 2018. On June 4, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 5, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 8, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 28, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on June 29, 2018.
The Center appointed Lynda J. Zadra-Symes as the sole panelist in this matter on July 11, 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
Complainant offers insurance services under the name Glatfelter Insurance Group. Complainant owns the following valid and subsisting United States trademark registrations incorporating the term “glatfelter” for use in connection with insurance services:
GLATFELTER INSURANCE GROUP No. 2,394,650 Registered October 17, 2000
GLATFELTER INSURANCE GROUP No. 2,403,191 Registered November 14, 2000
GLATFELTER PUBLIC PRACTICE No. 3,747,670 Registered February 9, 2010
GLATFELTER PROGRAM MANAGERS No. 4,306.078 Registered March 19, 2013.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on May 15, 2018. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark rights, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In order to succeed in its claim, Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel to decide a complaint “on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated that it has rights in the trademark registrations referenced above, where the dominant portion of each is the term “Glatfelter”. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. The disputed domain name consists of a slight misspelling of the dominant portion of Complainant’s marks and domain name, with an extra “t”. This is a classic example of “typo-squatting” designed to lure Internet users to the cyber-squatter’s website.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use Complainant’s marks or apply for or use any domain name incorporating or simulating Complainant’s marks. There is no record that Complainant is commonly known by the disputed domain name or has acquired any trademark or service mark rights to use the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in a fraudulent scheme to solicit payment from Complainant’s network of insurance brokers, and thus has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In support of this contention, Complainant submitted email correspondence from an email at the disputed domain name evidencing an attempt to deceive Complainant’s broker into paying a bogus invoice received from an email address at the disputed domain name. The broker also received emails from the disputed domain name stating “You are Going Down!”. In addition, Complainant submitted evidence that the broker’s email account had been hacked resulting in the broker’s email correspondence being forwarded to a third party email address.
As of May 23, 2018, the disputed domain name had no outward facing webpage but had active email services directing to email servers.
The record indicates that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to attempt to fraudulently obtain money from insurance brokers by impersonating Complainant and inserting a script into the broker’s email server to automatically forward emails to a third party.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states circumstances which, if found, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the 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 trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark 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 domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the 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 of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location.
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for fraudulent purposes as discussed above constitutes registration and use in bad faith. The record indicates that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its mark, as it forwarded an invoice containing Complainant’s marks in order to obtain payment from Complainant’s broker. Respondent also had legal constructive notice of Complainant’s trademark rights by virtue of Complainant’s United States trademark registrations. 15 U.S.C. Section 1072.
The Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in 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 Complainant.
Lynda J. Zadra-Symes
Sole Panelist
Date: July 24, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy