The Complainant is Pet Plan Ltd of United Kingdom, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Zac Cushing, United States of America (“United States”), self-represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 2, 2019. On April 3, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same date, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 10, 2019, 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 April 12, 2019. The Center received an informal email communication from the Respondent on April 12, 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 April 24, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 14, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any formal response. The Center notified the Parties on May 15, 2019, that it would proceed to panel appointment.
The Center appointed Jacob (Changjie) Chen as the sole panelist in this matter on May 29, 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, Pet Plan Ltd, provides pet insurance for domestic and exotic pets both in the United Kingdom and around the globe through various licensees and provides insurance to pet care professionals and a pet finding services. The Complainant was founded in 1976 and now is a subsidiary of Allianz Insurance plc. The Complainant owns several PETPLAN trademarks worldwide, e.g., United States trademark No. 3161569, registered on October 24, 2006; Canadian trademark No. TMA463628, registered on September 27, 1996; United Kingdom trademark No.00002052294, registered on January 17, 1997; European Union trademark No.000328492, registered on October 16, 2000; Australian trademark No.918123, registered on September 19, 2005. The Complainant registered domain names before August 1996 and on March 11, 1996 and the two domain names have been resolving to websites providing its pet insurance services.
The Respondent, Zac Cushing, registered the disputed domain name on August 16, 2014. The disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying medicare trusted information. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PETPLAN trademark, and the addition of generic term “all” and letter “s” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant finally contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not submit a formal response in reply to the Complainant’s contentions but sent emails to the Complainant copying the Center on April 10 and 12, 2019. The details of the Respondent’s emails have been mentioned in section 6.C below. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of the PETPLAN trademark, early registered in 1996, Canadian trademark TMA463628, far predates the registration date of the disputed domain name (August 16, 2014). The Complainant has successfully established its right upon the trademark.
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark PETPLAN in its entirety, with an addition of generic term “all” before the Complainant’s trademark and a letter “s” after the trademark. UDRP jurisprudence has established that incorporation of a complainant’s trademark in its entirety into a domain name is sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark. Moreover, the mere addition of generic term “all” and the letter “s” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. Franklin Lavall?e / IkeaC,WIPO Case No. D2015-2042, and Pet Plan Ltd v. Nicholas Plagge / SeniorTours Vacations,WIPO Case No. D2015-1691.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PETPLAN trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The burden of production is hence shifted to the Respondent to rebut the Complainant’s contentions. In this case, the Respondent’s failure to come forward with relevant evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case means that the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy according to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1. See Construction Skills Certification Scheme Limited v. Mara Figueira,WIPO Case No. D2010-0947.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel notes that the disputed domain name was registered on August 16, 2014, eighteen years after the registration date of the Complainant’s trademark. Given the reputation of the Complainant, the Panel holds that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark and/or services at the time of registering the disputed domain name as the Internet search shows that the trademark PETPLAN links to the Complainant. Further, according to the Respondent’s email to the Complainant on April 10, 2019, the Respondent said that it was interested in offering pet insurance and even contacted the Complainant about getting appointed to offer its plan, which also evidences the Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant and its services. Without any rights or legitimate interests, the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name is indicative of bad faith.
The Panel further observes that the disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying medicare trusted information advertising similar services to the Complainant’s. Thus, the Panel views that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. See NVIDIA Corporation v. Brent Angie/Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyP,WIPO Case No. D2014-1171.
Further, according to the Respondent’s email to the Complainant respectively on April 10 and 12, 2019, the Respondent said that it considers selling the disputed domain name for USD 5,000 as it is a useful domain and it bought the disputed domain name and has paid for it every month for five years to keep the ownership of it. The Panel views that with the clear understanding of the disputed domain name’s value to the Complainant, the Respondent has intention to profit from selling it. Moreover, USD 5,000 would far exceed the typical cost related to the disputed domain name. Thus, the Respondent has intention to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name. See Mou Limited v. IT Manager, Jack Zhang,WIPO Case No. D2016-2130. Thus, the bad faith evident in the use of the disputed domain name can be established under 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
For the reasons above, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. 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.
Jacob (Changjie) Chen
Sole Panelist
Date: June 14, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy