The Complainant is American Society of Hematology, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, L.L.P., United States.
The Respondent is AD Solution Digital Marketing, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 20, 2019. On August 20, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 21, 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 August 27, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 16, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 17, 2019.
The Center appointed Adam Samuel as the sole panelist in this matter on September 26, 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 professional society servicing clinicians and scientists in the field of hematology, providing research, clinical care, education, training and advocacy services. The Complainant owns a number of trademarks for the name ASH in a variety of countries including a United States trademark, registration number 3253642 registered on June 19, 2007.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on June 24, 2019. This domain name currently resolves to a page featuring the Complainant’s trademark and 2019 Annual Conference, offering to arrange accommodation to participants at that event.
The Complainant promotes its businesses through the domain name , registered on June 14, 1996. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is comprised of a combination of the Complainant’s ASH trademark and the descriptive “2019” which indicates the current year and is an obvious reference to the Complainant’s 2019 Annual Meeting. Adding a descriptive or generic word to a trademark in a domain name, particularly when such additional words relate to the goods or services with which the trademark is sued does not avoid confusing similarity.
The Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the ASH trademarks, register a domain name containing them or operate the website located at the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant’s trademarks. The Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name which is nearly identical to the Complainant’s ASH trademark was done intentionally confuse and mislead consumers by trading off the Complainant’s trademark rights and running a personal information gathering scheme. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and thus lacks rights and a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The website displayed at the disputed domain name was deliberately designed to give the false impression that it is affiliated with or sponsored by the Complainant which is not the case.
The registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a well-known trademark by any entity that has no relationship to that mark is itself sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use. Almost immediately after registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent began operating a website to attract Internet users for commercial gain and obtain their personal data using misleading data entry forms. The disputed domain name was chosen to prey upon the Complainant’s goodwill and the global reputation of its Annual meeting. The Respondent website makes prominent use of the Complainant’s trademark in its header and homepage. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed 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 the Complainant has rights;
(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
The disputed domain name consists of the current year, the Complainant’s trademark and generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. The gTLD is irrelevant here because it is a standard registration requirement. See section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). The addition of ordinary meaning words as such to a trademark does not prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to that trademark. As section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 explains:
“Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”
For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not called “ASH” or anything similar. There is no evidence that the Complainant has ever authorized the Respondent to use its trademarks. Based on the available record, and in the absence of any response on this point, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The disputed domain name resolves to a website that appears to promote the Complainant’s annual meeting due to take place in December 2019. It freely uses the Complainant’s trademark ASH. The Home page appears to be inviting potential delegates to register for the meeting by supplying their contact details and request transport and accommodation assistance. On the About Us page, it gives the impression that the Respondent is the Complainant. Since there appears to be no connection between the Complainant and the Respondent, the Panel concludes that the purpose of the website is probably to collect delegates’ personal data for resale or other use, while utilizing the Complainant’s trademark without the Complainant’s permission or other lawful authority. At the very least, in registering and using the disputed domain name, the Respondent was seeking to disrupt the Complainant’s efforts to register delegates for its conference.
For all these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used 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 the Complainant.
Adam Samuel
Sole Panelist
Date: September 30, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy