The Complainant is LPG Systems SA of Valence, France represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States of America (“United States”) / Domain Admin, Domain Registries Foundation of Panama City, Panama. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (‘the 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 20, 2019. On February 21, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 21, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. On February 22, 2019, The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on February 26, 2019.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 28, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 20, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 21, 2019.
The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on March 28, 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 Complainant is the owner of the mark LPG SYSTEMS registered, inter alia, in France (registration number 1349007) from 1986 for health and beauty products and services. It owns .
The Domain Name registered in 2004 and transferred to the existing Respondent in 2018 has been pointed to commercial links for medical and beauty related products and services not connected to the Complainant. The Domain Name has been offered for sale for a sum in excess of out of pocket expenses. The Respondent has been the subject of a number of adverse UDRP decisions and is the owner of a number of domain names containing third party trade marks. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of the mark LPG SYSTEMS registered, inter alia, in France (registration number 1349007) from 1986 for health and beauty products and services. It owns .
The Domain Name registered in 2004 and acquired by the existing Respondent in 2018 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark omitting only a letter ‘s’ and adding the generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLD”) .com which does not prevent any relevant confusing similarity.
The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complainant has not authorised the Respondent who is not commonly known by the Domain Name. The Domain Name has been pointed to links to third party web sites some of which compete with the Complainant which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial legitimate fair use.
The fact that the Domain Name has been offered for sale for an amount in excess of out of pocket expenses is also an indication of a lack of a legitimate rights or interests in the Domain Name and registration and use in bad faith under Policy, paragraph 4 (b)(i).
The Domain Name is a typosquatting registration which constitutes bad faith per se under Policy, paragraph 4 (b)(iii).
The pointing of the Domain Name to commercial links that compete with the Complainant shows that the Respondent has targetted the Complainant and is aware of the Complainant and its rights. The Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to Respondent’s web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source or affiliation of that web site or goods or services offered on that web site under Policy, paragraph 4 (b)(iv).
The Respondent has been the subject of adverse findings in a number of UDRP cases and owns a number of domain name registrations containing trade marks of third parties indicating a pattern of conduct under Policy, paragraph 4 (b)(ii). B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name consists of a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LPG SYSTEMS mark (registered in the United States for health and beauty related goods and services from 1986) simply omitting a letter “s” and adding the gTLD “.com”.
The omission of a single letter “s” and the addition of the gTLD “.com” does not serve to prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s LPG SYSTEMS mark.
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy with a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
As such the Panel holds that paragraph 4 (a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name.
The Respondent has used the site attached to the Domain Name for links offering competing goods or services not connected with the Complainant. It does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with the Complainant. The Panel finds this use is confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. As it is commercial it cannot be a noncommercial legitimate fair use.
Further the fact that the Domain Name appears to be a typosquatting registration, has been offered for sale for a sum far in excess of out of pocket expenses and the Respondent has been the subject of several adverse UDRP decisions and is the owner of a number of domain names containing the marks of third parties are also indications of a lack of rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent.
As such the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
In the opinion of the Panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the site attached to it is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe the goods or services offered on the commercial links are connected to or approved by the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its web site by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site or goods or services offered on it under Policy, paragraph 4 (b)(iv) which is also likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant under Policy, paragraph 4 (b)(iii). The nature of the links make it more likely than not that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its business when it acquired the Domain Name in 2018 and the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its business at that time.
Typosquatting is also an indication of bad faith registration and use under Policy, paragraph 4 (b)(iii).
The Domain Name has also been offered generally for sale for a sum well in excess of out of pocket expenses contrary to Policy, paragraph 4 (b)(i).
There is also evidence in terms of adverse UDRP decisions and registration records showing domain names contains the marks of third parties indicating that the Respondent has been involved in a pattern of conduct under Policy, paragraph 4 (b)(ii).
As such, the Panel believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb 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.
Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: March 29, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy