The Complainant is Safelite Group, Inc. of Columbus, Ohio, United States of America (“USA”), represented by Ice Miller LLP, USA.
The Respondent is Kissi Kissi of Sundernagar, Himachal Pradesh, India. 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 April 1, 2019. On April 1, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 2, 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 April 4, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 24, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 30, 2019.
The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on May 13, 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 SAFELITE mark, registered, inter alia, in the USA for glass installation services and goods with first use recorded as 1951. It owns .
The Domain Name registered on August 21, 2018, points to a site using the Complainant’s word mark and logo and material copied from the Complainant’s web site to offer coupons purporting to relate to the Complainant’s services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of the SAFELITE mark, registered, inter alia, in the USA for glass installation services and goods with first use recorded as 1951. It owns .
The Domain Name registered in 2018 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark containing it in its entirety adding only the generic terms “coupon” and “50” which do not prevent that confusing similarity.
The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name or authorised by the Complainant. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name which is attached to a site using the Complainant’s trade mark and its logo which is also registered as a trade mark to offer falsified coupons for services purporting to be from the Complainant using material copied from the Complainant’s site to mislead Internet users that the Respondent’s site is affiliated with the Complainant. This cannot be a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. It is bad faith registration and use to intentionally attract consumers for commercial gain. The use of the Complainant’s logo and material from the Complainant’s web site shows that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and its rights and business. 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 the Complainant's SAFELITE mark (which is registered, inter alia, in USA for services and products relating to glass installation and has been used since 1951), the generic terms “coupon” and “50” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. Previous UDRP panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds generic terms to a complainant’s mark. The Panel agrees that the addition of the generic terms “coupon” and “50” to the Complainant’s mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trade mark pursuant to the Policy.
The gTLD “.com” does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the SAFELITE mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name.
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose of the Policy to 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 marks. 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 web site attached to the Domain Name has used the Complainant’s logo and has copied material from the Complainant’s web site so that the Respondent’s site appeared to be an official site of the Complainant. It did 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 such the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests 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 Panel 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 it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it offers coupons and services under the Domain Name containing the Complainant’s SAFELITE word mark for a site using the Complainant’s logo and material copied from the Complainant’s web site. The use of the Complainant’s word mark, logo and material from the Complainant’s web site shows that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its business. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site or services on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant.
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 under para 4(b)(iv) and 4(b)(iii). 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.
Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: May 13, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy