The Complainant is T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., United States of America (“United States” or “US”), represented by Winterfeldt IP Group PLLC, United States.
The Respondent is Vietnam Domain Privacy Services, Viet Nam / Pham Dinh Nhut, Viet Nam. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , and (hereafter referred separately as the “Disputed Domain Name” and collectively as the “Disputed Domain Names”) are registered with April Sea Information Technology Corporation (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 7, 2019. On May 8, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On May 21, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 23, 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 May 24, 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”).
The Center sent an email communication to the parties on May 23, 2019, regarding the language of the proceeding, as the Complaint had been submitted in English and the language of the registration agreements for the Disputed Domain Names are Vietnamese. The Complainant submitted a request for English to be the language of the proceeding on May 24, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any communication regarding the language of the proceeding.
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 29, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 18, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 19, 2019.
The Center appointed Pham Nghiem Xuan Bac as the sole panelist in this matter on June 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
The Complainant, T. Rowe Price Group Inc., is a US-based company operating asset management services including mutual funds, subadvisory services, separate account management, recordkeeping, and related services for individuals, institutions, retirement plan sponsors, and financial intermediaries since 1937. The Complainant has offices and affiliates in various countries around the world. As of 2018, the Complainant had USD 1.02 trillion in total assets under its management and was ranked as the 15th largest asset management firm in the world.
The Complainant has used the T. ROWE PRICE trademark in the United States since 1937 and is currently holding numerous trademark registrations for T. ROWE PRICE in connection with a variety of asset management services in Class 36 and related goods/services in other jurisdictions around the world, including US trademark Nos. 1493517, 2785262, and 4374970, respectively registered on June 21, 1988, November 25, 2003, and July 30, 2013; Indonesia trademark No. IDM000318354, registered on August 19, 2011; Malaysia trademark No. 01005428, having effective priority date on April 27, 2001; Singapore trademark No. T0105387J, registered on April 16, 2001; and Thailand trademark No. บ16459, registered on June 26, 2002. The Complainant’s T. ROWE PRICE trademarks will hereinafter be collectively referred to as the “T. ROWE PRICE Trademarks”.
The Complainant has registered a number of domain names including its T. ROWE PRICE Trademarks, the earliest of which was registered on July 6, 1995. These domain names have been used and associated with the Complainant’s business since 1995.
The Disputed Domain Names , , and were registered with the Registrar on July 30, 2004, August 17, 2004, and October 5, 2004, respectively. As of the date of this Decision, the Disputed Domain Names are resolving to parked pages containing sponsored links to various third-party contents, including those associated with the investment and other financial services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in the present case, as follows: (i) The Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s T. ROWE PRICE Trademarks. The incorporation of certain typographical variations of the Complainant’s T. ROWE PRICE Trademarks, where the misspelled trademark remains the dominant or principal component of the Disputed Domain Names, and the addition of the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) “.com” which is viewed as a standard registration requirement do not remove the likelihood of confusion in the mind of the public. (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names.
As to legitimacy, the Complainant argues that it has never authorized the Respondent to use the T. ROWE PRICE Trademarks in any manner. Besides, the Disputed Domain Names were registered well after the Complainant had registered the T. ROWE PRICE Trademarks and do not reflect the Respondent’s common name or organization name. Further, by evidencing that the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Names in connection with monetized parked pages containing sponsored links to various third-party content, which is associated with the competitors of the Complainant, does not meet the requirements for a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant states that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Names, thus the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to rebut the Complainant’s contentions. (iii) The Disputed Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Names in an attempt to (a) prevent the Complainant from reflecting common misspellings of its T. ROWE PRICE mark in corresponding domain names, and (b) take advantage of the confusion caused by the similarity of the Disputed Domain Names to the T. ROWE PRICE Trademarks, particularly by directing Internet users to parked pages generating revenue for the Respondent through the use of various monetization platforms.
The Complainant also argues that the Complainant’s rights in the T. ROWE PRICE Trademarks are well established, and its “T. Rowe Price” brand has achieved a level of recognition and fame such that the Respondent has no colorable argument that he is unaware of the Complainant.
The Complainant further notes that the Respondent has been the losing respondent in a number of previous proceedings under the Policy for similar activity as presented in this case. The Respondent’s use of a proxy service also evidences bad faith.
On basis of the above assertions, the Complainant requests the transfer of the Disputed Domain Names. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Procedural Issues (i) The Respondent’s identity
The Panel notes that the present case involves privacy registration services. At the time the Complaint was filed on May 7, 2019, the Respondent was identified as “Vietnam Domain Privacy Services”. On May 21, 2019, the Registrar revealed the underlying registrant to be “Pham Dinh Nhut”.
Therefore, in accordance with section 4.4.5, the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), the Panel determines the identity of the Respondent in this case to be the disclosed underlying registrant. (ii) Language of the Proceedings
The Complaint was filed in English. However, the Registrar confirmed that the language of the Registration Agreement was Vietnamese.
On May 24, 2019, the Complainant submitted a request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.
According to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.
Similar to previous UDRP decisions, the Panel finds that the spirit of paragraph 11(a) is to ensure fairness in the selection of language by giving full consideration to the parties’ level of comfort with each language, the expenses to be incurred and possibility of delay in the proceeding in the event translations are required and other relevant factors (See, e.g., Deutsche Messe AG v. Kim Hyungho,WIPO Case No. D2003-0679). In the case at hand, the Panel takes the circumstances of the proceeding into account, including, but not limited to:
(i) the fact that the Complainant, a US business entity, does not appear to be able to communicate in Vietnamese, and therefore, if the Complainant were required to have the documents translated into Vietnamese, the proceeding would be unduly delayed, and the Complainant would have to incur substantial expenses for translation;
(ii) English is a common language in global business, and it is also evidenced to the Panel that the websites at the Disputed Domain Names contain English contents, suggesting that the Respondent has knowledge of the English language and would be able to communicate in English; and
(iii) the Respondent had ample opportunity to raise objections in relation to the language of the proceeding or make known its preference, but it did not provide any response in this regard.
Pursuant to paragraph 10(c) of the Rules, which provides that “the Panel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition”, the Panel hereby decides, under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, that the language of the proceeding shall be English and shall render its decision in English. (iii) Delay in bringing the Complaint
The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names were registered with the Registrar on July 30, 2004, August 17, 2004, and October 5, 2004, respectively, but the Complaint was not filed with the Center until May 7, 2019. In considering this delay of nearly 15 years in challenging the Respondent’s registrations of the Disputed Domain Names, the Panel is of the same views as decisions mentioned in section 4.17 of WIPO Overview 3.0 that “the doctrine or defense of laches as such does not generally apply under the UDRP, and that delay in bringing a complaint does not of itself prevent the Complainant from filing under the UDRP, or from being able to succeed under the UDRP, where the Complainant can establish a case on the merits under the requisite three elements”. However, similar to a previous UDRP decision, the Panel shall take into account this delay when considering the second and third element requiring the Complainant to establish that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests and that the Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith (see, e.g., CeltonManx Limited v. Pham Dinh Nhut, WIPO Case No. D2014-0109). (iv) The Respondent's Failure to Respond
The Respondent’s failure to file a Response does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant (see, e.g., Tradewind Media, LLC d/b/a Intopic Media v. Jayson Hahn,WIPO Case No. D2010-1413,and M. Corentin Benoit Thiercelin v. CyberDeal, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2010-0941). However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default.
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to decide on the remedy sought by the Complainant, the Panel will examine whether each of the following three elements is present:
(i) the Disputed Domain Names registered by the Respondent are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names; and
(iii) the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to establish the two following elements: (1) that it has trademark rights, and, if so, (2) that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to its trademark.
First, the Panel finds that the Complainant has evidenced that it has trademark rights in and to the T. ROWE PRICE Trademarks, which were registered before the registration of the Disputed Domain Names. In addition, it is evidenced that the Complainant has a wide use of its T. ROWE PRICE Trademarks for its asset management services and offers global investment management products, tools, and services, including mutual funds, subadvisory services, separate account management, recordkeeping, and related services for individuals, institutions, retirement plan sponsors, and financial intermediaries.
In the case at hand, the Panel notes that the Complainant does not have a registered trademark for “T. ROWE PRICE” in Viet Nam. However, it is well established that the jurisdictions where the trademark is valid, its date of registration (or claimed first use), and the goods and/or services for which it is registered or used in commerce, are all irrelevant for the purpose of finding rights in a trademark under the first element of the UDRP. See the section 1.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
Second, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names differ from the T. ROWE PRICE Trademarks by merely the omission of the letter “r” after the letter “t” and prior to the letter “o” with regard to , or an addition of the letter “c” between letters “i” and “c” with regard to , or substitution of the letter “”" by the letter “o” with regard to . In accordance with section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, a domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. Thus, the omission , addition, or substitution does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Names and the T. ROWE PRICE Trademarks. In the Panel's view, “toweprice”, “trowepricce”, and “troweproce” are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks in terms of structure, presentation, and pronunciation.
This is a typical case of a deliberate misspelling of a trademark (so-called “typosquatting”), by omitting, adding, or substituting the order of letters of a trademark, where numerous UDRP panels in the past have found confusing similarity to be present, see, inter alia, Yurtici Kargo Servisi A.S. v. Yurticicargo Yurticikargo,WIPO Case No. D2003-0707; CareerBuilder, LLC v. Azra Khan,WIPO Case No. D2003-0493; The Sportsman's Guide, Inc. v. Vipercom,WIPO Case No. D2003-0145; Neuberger Berman Inc. v. Alfred Jacobsen,WIPO Case No. D2000-0323.
Thirdly, the Panel finds, similarly to other UDRP panels, that the addition of the applicable TLD “.com” to the Disputed Domain Names is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such can be disregarded in the determination of confusing similarity (see, e.g., Volkswagen AG v. Privacy Protection Services,WIPO Case No. D2012-2066; The Coca-Cola Company v. David Jurkiewicz,WIPO Case No. DME2010-0008; Telecom Personal, S.A., v. NAMEZERO.COM, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0015; F. Hoffmann La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A.,WIPO Case No. D2006-0451; Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003). Therefore, in this present case, the addition of the TLD “.com”, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy.
Based on the foregoing findings, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's Trademarks, and paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is established. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists circumstances, in particular but without limitation, which, if found by the Panel to be proved, demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy reads:
“Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. The Respondent did not refute the Complainant’s contentions.
The consensus of UDRP panels is that while the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, once a prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating its rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names (See e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0270; Julian Barnes v. Old Barn Studios,WIPO Case No. D2001-0121; section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).
In this instant case, the Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to meet that burden since no Response was submitted, while the Complainant has presented evidence to the Panel that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names.
Regarding paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, the Panel finds, in light of the Complainant’s asserted facts, that no license, permission or authorization of any kind to use the Complainant’s Trademarks has been granted to the Respondent. There is no evidence available that the Respondent holds any registered or unregistered trademark rights to the Disputed Domain Names.
Further, the Complainant has submitted relevant evidence showing that the Disputed Domain Names resolve to parked pages with Pay-Per-Click (“PPC”) links that redirect Internet users to other online locations. In this regard, section 2.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 holds that “the use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s mark or otherwise mislead Internet users”.
In this present case, the Panel finds that the PPC links in question are referring to services of the Complainant’s competitors and others. So, in light of foregoing viewpoint and similarly to a number of well-established prior UDRP decisions, the Panel upholds that operating PPC parking pages using a distinctive trademark or its intentionally-misspelled version in a domain name, and providing connection to goods and/or services competitive with the trademark owner, does not establish bona fide offering of goods or services (see, e.g, Virgin Enterprises Limited v. LINYANXIAO aka lin yanxiao,WIPO Case No. D2016-2302; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Domain Administrator, PrivacyG / George Ring, DN Capital Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2017-0302; Archer-Daniels-Midland Company v. Wang De Bing,WIPO Case No. D2017-0363).
Regarding paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, the Panel finds that there is no evidence showing that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names. Based on the evidence before the Panel the Respondent has made use of a privacy service until that shield was lifted by the Registrar, the Respondent does not have a name and/or organization reflecting the Disputed Domain Names. Further, there is also no evidence showing that the Respondent operates any bona fide business or organization under the Disputed Domain Names or under the name “T. Rowe Price”. Therefore, it is not evidenced that the Respondent is identified by “T. Rowe Price” or that it has any rights in it.
Regarding paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, the Panel finds that there is no evidence that the Respondent is making any noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Names.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names, and the second element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is established. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists four circumstances that, without limitation, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.”
The above four circumstances are not exhaustive and bad faith may be found by the Panel alternatively. The Panel finds that the Complainant has put forth evidence that the Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith. The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions and, therefore, has not refuted the Complainant’s contentions. Registration in bad faith
The Panel has considered the Complainant’s assertions and evidence with regard to the Respondent’s registrations of the Disputed Domain Names. In this regard, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s T. ROWE PRICE Trademarks have been registered in a variety of jurisdictions around the world. In addition, the Complainant’s T. ROWE PRICE Trademarks have been put in use over a lengthy period of time and gained certain reputation in the industry of asset management. The Complainant’s T. ROWE PRICE Trademarks and its domain name all well predate the registration of the Disputed Domain Names.
The Disputed Domain Names in fact incorporate typographical errors of the T. ROWE PRICE Trademarks. Further, “T. Rowe Price” as a whole is not descriptive and devoid of meaning other than the services of the Complainant. Hence, it is very unlikely that the Respondent would have registered the Disputed Domain Names incorporating the typographical errors of the Complainant’s trademarks without knowledge of the T. ROWE PRICE Trademarks and it defies common sense to believe that the Respondent coincidentally selected the Disputed Domain Names without any knowledge of the Complainant and its trademarks.
It is further to be noted that the Respondent used a privacy service provider to hide its identity behind a privacy shield in registrations of the Disputed Domain Names. In this regards, the Panel is of the opinion that the above-mentioned Respondent’s use which is known to intentionally delay disclosure of the identity of the actual underlying registrant constitutes a factor indicating bad faith. See section 3.6 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
These facts show that the Respondent did not register the Disputed Domain Names in a fortuity. The Respondent obviously knew of the Complainant and its T. ROWE PRICE Trademarks before the registration of the Disputed Domain Names, and the Panel considers the registration an attempt by the Respondent as to take advantage of the Complainant’s goodwill. Use in bad faith
In Section 6.C. above, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. In the Panel’s view, use of domain names, to which one has no rights or legitimate interests, is very often a clear indication of use in bad faith.
As discussed earlier, the Respondent is typosquatting the Complainant’s Trademarks in the Disputed Domain Names. The Disputed Domain Names resolve to PPC parking sites, where the PPC links are also referring the services of the Complainant’s competitors and others. Further, the Respondent is using a privacy service to conceal its “true” or “underlying” registrant identity. These facts, in the Panel’s opinion, further evidence bad faith use.
In addition, the Panel finds that the Respondent, Pham Dinh Nhut, in three years between 2014 and 2017, was involved in more than 10 cases of domain name disputes, namely Kurt Geiger Limited v. Vietnam Domain Privacy Services / Pham Dinh Nhut,WIPO Case No. D2017-0364; Moelis & Company Group LP v. Vietnam Domain Privacy Services / Pham Dinh Nhut,WIPO Case No. D2016-2554; Herald & Weekly Times Pty Limited v. Vietnam Domain Privacy Services / Pham Dinh Nhut,WIPO Case No. D2016-1162; Dollar Bank, Federal Savings Bank v. Pham Dinh Nhut,WIPO Case No. D2016-0787; Arnold Clark Automobiles Limited v. Vietnam Domain Privacy Services / Pham Dinh Nhut,WIPO Case No. D2016-0562; Malwarebytes Inc v. Vietnam Domain Privacy Services / Pham Dinh Nhut,WIPO Case No. D2015-1361; Kimmel Center, Inc. f/k/a Regional Performing Arts Center, Inc. v. Vietnam Domain Privacy Services / Pham Dinh Nhut,WIPO Case No. D2015-0765; Pentair, Inc. v. Vietnam Domain Privacy Services / Pham Dinh Nhut,WIPO Case No. D2014-2161; ESTEVA OOMMM, S.L. v. Pham Dinh Nhut / Vietnam Domain Privacy Services,WIPO Case No. D2014-2095; Delta Dental Plans Association v. ICS INC. aka ORM Ltd./Balticsea LLC/Contact Privacy Inc.; Registrant [4459713]: Taranga Services Pty Ltd/Moniker Privacy Services; ICS INC./Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft/Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyP; ICS INC./GEORGE WASHERE/WHOIS PRIVACY PROTECTION SERVICE, INC.; Diamond Point Enterprises Limited/Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd; Transure Enterprise Ltd/A Domain Privacy; Online Management/Domains By Proxy, LLC; Ryan G Foo, PPA Media Services/Fundacion Private Whois; Pham Dinh Nhut/Vietnam Domain Privacy Services; Pavol Icik, Poste Restante/Dragan Platic, Poste restante/Privacy Protection Service,WIPO Case No. D2014-0474; CeltonManx Limited v. Pham Dinh Nhut,WIPO Case No. D2014-0109; and Pierre & Vacances Center Parcs Group v. Pham Dinh Nhut,WIPO Case No. D2017-0605.
All these cases are similar in terms of the Respondent’s pattern of conduct where it used a privacy service to register domain names that previous UDRP panels found be identical or confusingly similar to another entity’s trademarks. All these domain names were decided to be transferred to the respective complainants. The Panel finds this pattern of conduct to be indicative of bad faith.
With all these facts and finding, the Panel finds that by using the Disputed Domain Names in this manner, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its websites and earn income from such links on a PPC basis by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website, for commercial gain, and earning. Numerous UDRP panels have held that a respondent who intentionally diverts Internet users through a likelihood of confusion with a complainant’s mark to its website constitutes bad faith.
Taking into account all of the above, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names were registered and are being used by the Respondent in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and the third element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is established. 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 Names , , and be transferred to the Complainant.
Pham Nghiem Xuan Bac
Sole Panelist
Date: July 3, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy