Complainant is SS&C Technologies, Inc., United States of America (“United States” or “US”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
Respondent is Gholam Kiani of, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with N, Inc. (N LLC) (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 16, 2019. On April 16, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 17, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 17, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 7, 2019. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 8, 2019.
The Center appointed Lynda J. Zadra-Symes as the sole panelist in this matter on May 21, 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
Complainant provides services and software for the global financial services industry. Complainant was founded in 1986 and has more than 22,000 employees worldwide with 11,0000 clients principally within the fields of institutional asset and wealth management, alternative investment management, financial advisory, and financial institutions vertical markets. In the year ending December 31, 2017, Complainant generated revenues of USD 1.675.3 million. In 2018, Complainant ranked No. 38 on Fortune Magazine’s 100 Fastest-Growing Companies list. Complainant has registered more than 150 domain names in the name of its subsidiary SS&C Technologies Canada Corp., including and . Complainant promotes its services through its primary website at .
Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for marks including the mark SS&C, including the following registrations:
SS&C
European Union (“EU”)
017945946
Registered January 9, 2019
SS&C FUNDHUB
US
5559353
Registered September 11, 2018
SS&C FUNDHUB
EU
017884077
Registered October 6, 2018
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on January 10, 2019, after Complainant filed for registration of its SS&C trademarks with the EU Intellectual Property Office and US Patent and Trademark Office. This registration date is also significantly after Complainant’s registration of its and domain names on March 30, 1995, and June 4, 1996, respectively. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In order to succeed in its claim, Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain names has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel to decide a complaint “on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated that it has rights in the trademark SS&C. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety, except for the ampersand and the addition of the abbreviation “inc.” The abbreviation “inc.” is descriptive for “incorporated” and does not add any distinguishing feature. The disputed domain name includes an additional letter “c” in the place of the ampersand. This appears to be an example of typosquatting.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant asserts that Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant in any way. Complainant has not licensed, authorized or permitted Respondent to register domain names incorporating Complainant’s trademark. There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The pertinent WhoIs information identifies the Registrant as “Gholam Kiani,” which does not resemble the disputed domain name in any manner. As a result of a takedown, the disputed domain name now resolves to a blank page. Prior to its takedown, Respondent used the disputed domain name to send emails to numerous people, fraudulently attempting to create the impression that such emails originated from Complainant. In these emails, Respondent used the email address “[…]@” to request unsuspecting users to remit a capital call payment to new bank account details. Respondent also signed off as “SS&C Fund services,” which is the name of a subsidiary of Complainant that provides fund administration services. By sending fraudulent emails from the disputed domain name, Respondent sought to take advantage of the fame of Complainant’s trademarks and the trust and goodwill that Complainant has developed among consumers. Respondent’s attempt to pass itself off as Complainant for commercial gain, and with devious motives, clearly does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainant has established that its SS&C trademarks are well-known internationally, with trademark registrations across numerous countries prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name.
Respondent sent fraudulent emails to unsuspecting customers by passing itself off as Complainant. The evidence of record therefore indicates that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time it registered the disputed domain name. Respondent’s actions in sending fraudulent emails to obtain sensitive customer financial information indicate bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name.
In addition, the disputed domain name is a slight misspelling of Complainant’s SS&C trademarks, as well as its domain name. Respondent is attempting to capitalize on typing errors committed by Complainant’s customers in trying to locate Complainant on the Internet. The evidence indicates that Respondent intentionally designed the disputed domain name to closely mimic Complainant’s trademarks and domain name for the purpose of fraudulent financial gain. This is further evidence of bad faith.
In addition to the disputed domain name, Respondent currently holds registrations for several other domain names that misappropriate the trademarks of well-known brands and businesses. Examples include and . This fact demonstrates that Respondent is engaging in a pattern of cybersquatting and typosquatting, which is further evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used 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 Complainant.
Lynda J. Zadra-Symes
Sole Panelist
Date: June 7, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy