The Complainant is Intuit Inc., United States of America, represented by Fenwick & West, LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp., Bahamas. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 17, 2019. On July 18, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On July 19, 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 25, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 14, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 15, 2019.
The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on August 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 is the owner of the trade mark TURBO TAX registered, inter alia, in the United States for computer software since 1985 (reg no 1369883). It owns .
The Domain Name registered in 2017 resolves to a webpage where it is for sale. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark TURBOTAX registered, inter alia, in the United States for computer software since 1985. It owns .
The Domain Name registered in 2017 is a typosquatting registration and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark adding only an extra ‘a’ and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” which do not prevent such confusing similarity.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is not authorised by the Complainant.
The Respondent is using the Domain Name to profit off the Complainant’s name through a monetisation scheme which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial legitimate or fair use. The Respondent has sold the Internet traffic to the Domain Name to an advertising platform that resells the traffic to buyers. In this case the Domain Name redirects to the website “” and is collecting referral fees from the Complainant, but the Complainant has no control over the platform which may be directed to the Complainant’s competitors.
The Respondent is redirecting Internet users who misspell the Complainant’s mark for commercial gain i.e. typosquatting which is bad faith. Additionally, the Complainant claims that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name for the purpose of renting the Domain Name to the Complainant or if the Complainant does not take it up to the Complainant’s competitors. 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 a misspelled version of the Complainants TURBOTAX mark (which is registered in USA since 1985 for computer software), merely adding an ‘a’ and the gTLD “.com”. The Panel agrees that misspellings such as the addition or omission of a letter and the addition of a gTLD does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainants trade mark pursuant to the Policy.
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose of the Policy to the TURBOTAX 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 a confusingly similar version of its mark. 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 Complainant alleges that the Respondent has the Domain Name to re-direct Internet traffic for commercial gain. However, the Panel notes that the Complainant has provided a copy of a screenshot of a website at “”, but has not provided evidence of the re-direction as such. The Domain Name currently points to a page offering the Domain Name for sale. Offering a domain name for sale cannot be a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate commercial or fair use.
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
There is no proof in the case file that the “Respondent is charging the Complainant to refer traffic from the Domain Name with the implied threat that if the Complainant does not pay the traffic will be directed to the Complainant’s competitors.”
However, the Domain Name seeks to take advantage of the situation where Internet users may make a typographical error. Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use under paragraphs 4(a)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) of the Policy and indicates the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its business. See Section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition.
Furthermore, the Domain Name is being offered generally for sale.
As such, the Panelist 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 paragraphs 4(b)(i) and 4(a)(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: August 22, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy