The Complainant is Coloplast A/S of Humlebaek, Denmark, internally represented.
The Respondent is Edith Lounsberry of Thiensville, Wisconsin, United States of America ("United States"). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Domain Name") is registered with eNom, Inc. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on August 6, 2018. On August 6, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August 7, 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 of the registrant.
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 August 21, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 10, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on September 11, 2018.
The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on September 24, 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 a Danish company that has operated since the 1950's and involved in the development of adhesive ostomy bags.
Today, the Complainant's business includes ostomy care, continence care, wound & skin care and interventional urology. The Complainant operates globally, with about 11,000 people employed.
The Complainant provides evidence of registered trademark for COLOPLAST, see International trademark registration No. 883011, registered on May 26, 2005, renewed on May 26, 2015. The Complainant incorporates "Coloplast" as in its registered company name, and it has several registered domain names that contain "coloplast", such as , and .
According to the Registrar, the Domain Name registration was created on April 25, 2018. At the time of filing the Complaint, and also at the time of drafting the decision, the Domain Name resolved to an error page. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant provides evidence of trademark registrations for COLOPLAST. The Complainant argues that the Domain Name reproduces the Complainant's registered trademark COLOPLAST.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, as "Coloplast" is the Complainant's registered company name and trademark.
As to bad faith, the Complainant indirectly argues that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its trademark when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Respondent has not responded to the Complainant's cease and desist letter sent on April 30, 2018. 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 that it has rights in the trademark COLOPLAST.
The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name incorporates part of the Complainant's full company name Coloplast A/S, and confusingly similar to the trademark COLOPLAST. For the purpose of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com", see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 1.11.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register the Domain Name containing the Complainant's trademarks or otherwise make use of its marks. Based on the evidence, the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired common law rights.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted prima facie case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Even if the Complaint could have been more explicit, it is clear from the evidence that the Respondent has targeted the Complainant and its trademark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark COLOPLAST and company name Coloplast A/S. "AS" is an abbreviation of the Danish designation of a company limited by shares. It seems more likely than not that the Respondent knew of the Complainant and its business when it registered the Domain Name.
As noted by previous UDRP panels, the non-use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith. It is appropriate to look at the totality of the circumstances of a case to determine if a registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith for purposes of the Policy. In light of the Respondent's behavior as previously discussed and the implausibility of any good faith purpose to which the Domain Name may be put, the Panel considers that bad faith registration and use has been established in this case. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3.
The above finding of bad faith is supported by the fact that the Respondent has failed to respond to the Complainant's cease and desist letter and the Complaint.
For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: October 8, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy