The Complainant is Intuit Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Fenwick & West, LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 16, 2019. On July 16, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On July 17, 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 July 19, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 8, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 9, 2019.
The Center appointed Lynda M. Braun as the sole panelist in this matter on August 15, 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 a well-known provider of business and financial management software and online solutions. The Complainant has 9,000 employees worldwide, 19 locations in nine countries, revenue of USD 6 billion, and serves approximately 50 million individual and business customers with financial, business, and tax management software products and online services. One of the Complainant’s flagship products is its tax software, “TurboTax”, that enables individuals and small business owners to prepare and file their personal income taxes and small business taxes, respectively. “TurboTax” was developed in the mid-1980s and acquired by the Complainant in the early 1990s.
The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for its tax management software in the United States and in multiple jurisdictions worldwide. The Complainant, through itself and its predecessor in interest, has used its trademark registrations in connection with tax software since at least as early as October 1984, and has expended significant resources in developing public recognition and goodwill in its trademarks. The Complainant’s trademarks include, but are not limited to:
TURBOTAX, United States Registration No. 1,369,883, registered on November 12, 1985 in international class 9; TURBOTAX, United States Registration No. 2,512,370, registered on November 27, 2001 in international class 35; TURBOTAX, United States Registration No. 2,597,246, registered on July 23, 2002 in international class 42; and TURBOTAX, United States Registration No. 4,181,861, registered on July 31, 2012 in international classes 9, 35, 36, and 42 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “TURBOTAX Mark”).
In addition, the Complainant is the registrant of over 5,000 domain names, including, but not limited to the following that include or incorporate the Complainant’s TURBOTAX Mark: , , , , , and . The Complainant’s domain names resolve to its official website at “”.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on May 24, 2011. The Disputed Domain Name initially resolved to a website described by the Complainant1, but presumably was taken down by the Respondent because as of the writing of this Decision, that website no longer exists. The Panel notes that at the writing of this Decision, the Disputed Domain Name then resolved to the website “”, a site that displays its 2019 Back-to-School Guide for students looking to purchase a laptop. Several days later, that website was also no longer in existence and instead, the Disputed Domain Name resolved to “”, displaying Klaussner Mia Accent Chairs. Therefore, the Panel concludes that, based on the Respondent’s previous conduct, it is likely that the Respondent will continue to change the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves during the course of this proceeding. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The following are the Complainant’s contentions:
- the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark or trademarks.
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.
- the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
- the Complainant seeks the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent to the Complainant in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In order for the Complainant to prevail and have the Disputed Domain Name transferred to the Complainant, the Complainant must prove the following (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i-iii)):
(i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and
(iii) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. The Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the TURBOTAX Mark.
It is uncontroverted that the Complainant has established rights in the TURBOTAX Mark based on its many years of use as well as its federally registered trademarks that include or incorporate the TURBOTAX Mark. The general rule is that “registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive”. See CWI, Inc. v. Domain Administrator c/o Dynadot,WIPO Case No. D2015-1734. The Respondent has not rebutted this presumption, and therefore the Panel finds that the Complainant has enforceable rights in the TURBOTAX Mark.
The Disputed Domain Name consists of a misspelling of the TURBOTAX Mark, followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. This misspelling is an example of typosquatting, a situation in which a domain name includes a misspelled registered trademark. Here, the use of the letter “e” instead of an “o” does not operate to prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the TURBOTAX Mark and the Disputed Domain Name. See, e.g., ALH Group Pty Ltd v. Naveen Mathur,WIPO Case No. D2015-2004 (finding the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the trademark despite the addition of the letter “s”); see also WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), at section 1.9, which states that “[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 […]”.
Furthermore, the addition of a gTLD such as “.com” in a domain name is technically required. Thus, it is well established that such element may typically be disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. See Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. Proactiva,WIPO Case No. D2012-0182.
Accordingly, the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under the Policy, a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Once such a prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.
In this case, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case. In particular, the Respondent has not submitted any arguments or evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case and there is no evidence in the record that the Respondent is in any way associated with the Complainant. Furthermore, the Complainant has not authorized, licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its TURBOTAX Mark. The Respondent does not operate any business under the name “TurboTax” or “TurbeTax” nor is the Respondent making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name.
Accordingly, the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
This Panel finds that, based on the record, the Complainant has demonstrated the existence of the Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy.
First, the registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark by an entity that has no relationship to that mark may be sufficient evidence of bad faith registration. See Ebay Inc. v. Wangming,WIPO Case No. D2006-1107; Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0163. Moreover, the use of a domain name to attract Internet users to a respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with a complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the registrant’s website for commercial gain demonstrates registration and use in bad faith. Based on the circumstances here, the Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith to target the Complainant’s TURBOTAX Mark and to drive Internet traffic seeking the Complainant’s tax software to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain. See paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The Respondent is engaged in the practice of “typosquatting,” which redirects Internet users who misspell the TURBOTAX Mark to the Respondent’s website for the Respondent’s commercial gain. UDRP Panels have consistently held that “typosquatting” constitutes a bad faith use of a domain name pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv). The Respondent’s action of registering the Disputed Domain Name and using it to direct Internet traffic to its website evidences an intent to disrupt the Complainant’s business, deceive customers and trade off the Complainant’s goodwill by creating an unauthorized association between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s TURBOTAX Mark. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. Fernando Camacho Bohm,WIPO Case No. D2010-1552.
Second, the website to which the Disputed Domain Name initially resolved contained click through pages. As such, the Respondent was not only trading on consumer interest in the Complainant and the TURBOTAX Mark to generate Internet traffic and commercially benefit from the website links, but the Respondent also derived commercial advantage in the form of referral fees. In the Panel’s view, this constitutes bad faith use of the Disputed Domain Name. See Fox News Network, LLC v. Warren Reid,WIPO Case No. D2002-1085; Volvo Trademark Holding AB v. Unasi, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2005-0556; Lewis Black v. Burke Advertising, LLC,WIPO Case No. D2006-1128. Further, when pay-per-click pages are based on the trademark value of a domain name, the trend in UDRP decisions is to recognize that such practices constitute bad faith. See, Champagne Lanson v. Development Services/MailP, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2006-0006
(pay-per-click landing page not legitimate where ads are keyed to the trademark value of the domain name).
Finally, bad faith registration and use may be found where the respondent knew or should have known of the registration and use of the complainant’s mark prior to registering the disputed domain name. See Façonnable SAS v. Names4sale,WIPO Case No. D2001-1365. Such is true in the present case in which the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name decades after the Complainant first registered and used the TURBOTAX Mark, and during which time the Complainant enjoyed a high degree of fame for its tax software. It therefore strains credulity to believe that the Respondent had not known of the Complainant or its TURBOTAX Mark when registering the Disputed Domain Name. See Myer Stores Limited v. Mr. David John Singh,WIPO Case No. D2001-0763 (a finding of bad faith may be made where Respondent “knew or should have known” of the registration and/or use of the trademark prior to registering the domain name).
Based on the foregoing, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.
Accordingly, the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant 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.
Lynda M. Braun
Sole Panelist
Date: August 17, 2019
1 When the Complainant commenced this proceeding, the Disputed Domain Name resolved to a website at “”, which stated:
APPLE Rewards Event
July 9, 2019
Congratulations APPLE user! We would like to thank you for your loyalty to our products – so we are offering you the chance to receive a reward. Spin the wheel to claim your special prize. Good Luck! OK
A user who clicked the OK box would have to continue to click through the website. As each user clicked on the links, the Respondent would make a profit from an advertising platform.
When accessed via a computer with high security, the click-through resolved to a page that warned:
Your connection is not private. Attackers might be trying to steal your information from (for example passwords, messages or credit cards).
The Complainant provided screenshots of this website as an annex to the Complaint.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy