The Complainant is Corporation Service Company Corporation (“CSC”) of Wilmington, United States of America (“United States”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Rajendra Dhakal, Creative System Pvt. Ltd. of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India. 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 February 14, 2019. On February 14, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 14, 2019, 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 February 22, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 14, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 15, 2019.
The Center appointed Luis Miguel Beneyto Garcia-Reyes as the sole panelist in this matter on March 25, 2019. 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 following facts must be taken into account in the case at hand.
The Complainant, CSC is a North American leading company in the field of brand and compliance services founded in 1899 with presence in the United States, Canada, Europe and the Asian-pacific region.
The Complainant operates through the domain name .
The CSC and CSC GLOBAL trademarks can be considered as well known in the field of brand services.
The Complainant is the owner of several US CSC and CSC GLOBAL registrations (such as United States trademark registration number 2827193, registered on March 30, 2004). The mark CSC is also protected in the European Union (e.g., European Union trade mark (“EUTM”) registration number 015194319, registered on March 9, 2017).
The disputed domain name was registered on August 2018. The website identified by the disputed domain name lacks of any content.
The Complainant has attempted to contact the Respondent on several occasions, without response. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant, CSC was founded in 1899, and it is one of the world’s leading providers of business, legal, financial and digital brand services to companies. For more than a century, CSC has expanded its offerings to include an impressive array of enterprise-specific solutions.
Today, CSC is the unwavering partner for 90 percent of the Fortune 500, more than 65 percent of the Best Global Brands (Interbrand), nearly 10,000 law firms, and more than 3,000 financial organizations and has offices throughout the United States, Canada, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region.
CSC has received various rewards and recognition for its outstanding services to customers and employees. In 2017, CSC was ranked in the Top Three for Best Business Formation Services by readers of the New York Law Journal for three consecutive years. Workplace Dynamics and The News Journal also named CSC as one of Delaware’s Top Work Places in 2017 for 11 consecutive years.
CSC is the owner of trademark registrations across various jurisdictions and more concretely, United States registration number 3843672, CSCGLOBAL, registered on September 7, 2010 in classes 35 and 42; United States registration number 2827193, CSC, registered on March 30, 2004 in classes 35 and 42; United States registration number 4418594 registered on October 15, 2013 in class 45; United States registration number 2630508 CSC and Device registered on October 8, 2002 in classes 35 and 42 and EUTM registration number 015194319 CSC and Device registered on March 9, 2017 in classes 35, 36, 38, 42 and 45.
The disputed domain name varies from the Complainant’s trademark by only one letter – the Respondent simply added the letter “s” to the end of CSCGLOBAL so the disputed domain name is clearly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CSC and CSC GLOBAL trademarks.
The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; the Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or permitted the Respondent to register domain names incorporating the Complainant’s trademarks and the Respondent has not demonstrated any attempt to make legitimate use of the disputed domain name and website, that currently lacks of content. Consequently, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent is in the business of computer software development, web applications development, search engine optimization, and domain name registration. These services are similar and related to the Complainant’s own services. The Complainant, its business and its trademarks being well-known, it is “not possible to conceive of a plausible situation in which the Respondent would have been unaware of” the Complainant and its brands at the time the disputed domain name was registered, which constitutes bad faith per se.
The disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the Complainant’s CSCGLOBAL trademark and has intentionally been designed to closely mimic the Complainant’s trademark and primary domain. Registering a domain name to take advantage of traffic generated by typing errors committed by another’s customers, as here, is evidence of bad faith.
The Respondent has made no use of the disputed domain name, which should be duly considered in assessing bad faith registration and use, i.e., the Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name satisfies the requirement of bad faith.
Additionally, the Complainant sent several cease and desist letters to the Respondent, who ignored such attempts to resolve the dispute amicably and without the need to initiate the present proceedings. The Complainant submits that this should also be considered to support a finding of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant’s CSC trademark is fully included in the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the domain name is virtually identical to the Complainant’s CSC GLOBAL trademark. The presence of the final letter “s” in the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, considering that said letter “s” is a simple indicative of the plural form of the term “global”, and it cannot constitute an element that offers any substantial difference.
The Panel therefore regards compliance with the first requirement set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy to have been proven. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not replied to the Complaint and, consequently, there is no submissions regarding any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by the Respondent.
After considering all the facts and circumstances on record, the Panel finds no evidence to show that the Respondent may have been commonly known by the disputed domain name, or would have used or made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or that the Respondent would be making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent to misleadingly divert consumers for commercial gain or to tarnish the trademarks CSC and CSC GLOBAL.
The Panel further finds that the Respondent’s failure to reply to the Complaint in this case may be regarded as acquiescence of the Complaint and as confirmation of the non-existence of any rights or legitimate interests on its part. This same finding has been made in previous UDRP decisions, for instance, Montes de Piedad y Cajas de Ahorro en Ronda, Cádiz, Málaga, Almería y Antequera (UNICAJA)) v. Fernando Labadía Pardo,WIPO Case No. D2000-1402, Promoconcert S.L. v. Katarzyna Wolosz,WIPO Case No. D2014-1150,and Distribution Leader Price SNC v. Magna Solution,WIPO Case No. D2016-1879.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the second requirement laid down in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has likewise been fulfilled, inasmuch as the Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie case. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel considers that the evidence submitted by the Complainant supports the conclusion that there has been bad faith on the part of the Respondent. In this regard the following circumstances, particularly, should be taken into account:
First of all, it has been proven that trademarks CSC and CS GLOBAL enjoy a remarkable reputation in the field of brand and compliance services, and that there exist several registrations for CSC and CSC GLOBAL in several jurisdictions (e.g., in the United States and the European Union), In this light it may be concluded that it is not plausible that the disputed domain name may be the consequence of an independent act of creation on the part of the Respondent, who must have been fully aware that a third party already held rights in the trademark CSC and CSC GLOBAL (even more when the Complainant operates its principal website through the domain name , almost identical to the disputed domain name).
The Panel therefore takes the view that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.
The Panel will now turn to the question of possible bad faith on the part of the Respondent in the use of the disputed domain name. In this regard, it is to be noted that in the decision in the case of J.Garcia Carrion S.A v. Mª Jose Catalan Frias,WIPO Case No. D2000-0239, which was followed by many others, such as Rosetta Stone Ltd v. Oliver Hwizdal,WIPO Case No. DES2012-0009 and Distribution Leader Price SNC v. Magna Solution, supra, it was observed that:
“[…] there would appear to be no doubt that whoever has registered a domain name in bad faith and without a legitimate interest will also be using it in bad faith, as any other interpretation would be entirely contradictory. Whoever acts in bad faith in registering a domain name will use it in bad faith, given that the bad faith is linked to the knowledge he had at the time of registration that he was causing detriment, without due cause, to the rights of a third party.”
Additionally, at present the website identified by the disputed domain name is devoid of content. It is not possible to obtain any information other than the message “Cannot access this website” as well as “The IP address of the server of “www.” could not be found” so it does not include any link or alternative to contract any form of service. This may be considered a passive holding of the domain, which in previous UDRP decisions has been held tantamount to use in bad faith. By way of example we may mention the decision given in Feiyue v. Asís Mouhmouh,WIPO Case No. D2011-1225.
This Panel therefore takes the view that the conduct of the Respondent also exhibits bad faith with respect to the use of the disputed domain name, and consequently concludes that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is met. 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.
Luis Miguel Beneyto Garcia-Reyes
Sole Panelist
Date: April 8, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy