The Complainant is Intuit Inc., United States of America (the “United States” or “USA”), represented by Fenwick & West, LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Whois protection, this company does not own this domain name s.r.o., Czech Republic / Hulmiho Ukolen, Finland. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“the Domain Name”) is registered with Gransy, s.r.o. d/b/a (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 22, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 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 July 25, 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 August 2, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 22, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 23, 2019.
The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on August 27, 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 TURBOTAX registered, inter alia, in the United States for computer software since 1985 (reg no 1369883). It owns .
The Domain Name registered in 2008 has been used to point to a site hosting surveys requesting personal information from Internet users. 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 2008 is a typosquatting registration and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark adding only an extra “o” 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. Using a Domain Name to host surveys is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial legitimate or fair use.
Typosquatting is redirecting customers looking for the Complainant who misspell the Complainant’s mark to a site for commercial gain and is registration and use in bad faith. Phishing through surveys for valuable personal information is also registration and use in bad faith. 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 Complainant’s TURBO TAX mark (which is registered in USA since 1985 for computer software), merely adding an “o” and the gTLD “.com”. The Panel agrees that misspellings such as addition of a letter and the addition of a gTLD does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s 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.
It is clear from the evidence that the Respondent has used the pages attached to the domain name to link to a page hosting surveys for commercial gain. The usage of the Complainant’s mark which has a significant reputation in relation to an Internet page not owned or authorised by the Complainant is not fair as the Respondent does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with the Complainant. There is also the significant prospect of misuse of this information or phishing. As such, this cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use.
As such the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a 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
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 and indicates Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its business.
The Respondent has diverted Internet users looking for the Complainant to a site hosting surveys requesting the personal information of Internet users. Phishing is also registration and use in bad faith.
Both typosquatting and phishing are disruptive to the Complainant’s business under Policy 4(b)(iii).
Further by diverting Internet users to surveys the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to a website competing with the Complainant’s interests and has created a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site under Policy 4(b)(iv).
As such, the Panel 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 4(b)(iii) and (iv). 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 Domain Name, be transferred to the Complainant.
Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: August 29, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy