The Complainant is Rakuten, Inc. of Tokyo, Japan, represented by Greenberg Traurig, LLP, United States of America (“U.S.”).
The Respondent is Domain Administrator, Dvlpmnt Marketing, Inc. of Charlestown, Saint Kitts and Nevis. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with DNC Holdings, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 13, 2018. On September 14, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 17, 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 September 19, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 9, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 11, 2018.
The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on October 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 a Japanese e-commerce and Internet company founded in 1997. It owns multiple trademark registration incorporating its RAKUTEN trademark, including U.S. Reg. No. 4,088,493 issued on January 17, 2012.
While the disputed domain name was originally registered on May 19, 2000, the Respondent is only listed as registrant as of October 4, 2013. The disputed domain name is resolving to a website directing Internet users to goods and services of the Complainant’s competitors. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant alleges that it has satisfied all elements of the Policy, paragraph 4. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's registered mark except that it replaces the letter “e” in the Complainant’s mark with an “a”.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is thus confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and that the Complainant has fulfilled paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
There are no indications before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain name.
The use of the disputed domain name, which is a misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark (i.e. a case of so-called typo-squatting) for a website directing Internet users to the Complainant’s competitors, cannot be considered as use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Based on the Complainant’s credible contentions, the Panel finds that the Complainant, having made out a prima facie case which remains unrebutted by the Respondent, has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Under the circumstances of this case, it can be inferred that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that there is sufficient evidence that the Respondent is attempting to attract Internet users for commercial gain to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website, which fulfills paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Furthermore, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name is an example of typo-squatting, which by itself demonstrates bad faith.
In summary, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, thus fulfilling 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 disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Tobias Zuberbühler
Sole Panelist
Date: October 29, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy