The Complainant is Emirates, United Arab Emirates, represented by DLA Piper UK LLP, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Privacy.co.com Privacy ID# 839118, Savvy Investments, LLC Privacy ID# 839118, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Disputed Domain Name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 1, 2019. On November 1, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On the same date, 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 November 15, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 5, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 6, 2019. The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on December 23, 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 an international airline of the United Arab Emirates. The Complainant’s route portfolio comprises more than 158 destinations throughout six continents. In addition, the Complainant owns a significant international trademark portfolio for the trademark EMIRATES and other related trademarks, among others: - United Kingdom trademark registration EMIRATES, Registration No. UK00002023709 registered on March 22, 1996; - European Union trademark registration EMIRATES, Registration No. 000022137 registered on August 10, 1998; and - United States trademark registration, EMIRATES (& design), Registration No. 2254666 registered on June 22, 1999. Moreover, the Complainant is the owner of the domain name The Disputed Domain Name The Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name as part of an email address through which it is holding itself out to be the Complainant and attempting to lure Internet users to email the Respondent about a problem with a payment, in the mistaken belief that they are contacting the Complainant. In addition, the Disputed Domain Name redirects to the Complainant’s official website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows: Identical or confusingly similar The Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark. The Disputed Domain Name contains the term “emiretes”, which differs by only one letter to the Complainant’s trademark, which is clearly intended to be a misspelling of the same word. The only difference is the middle letter where the Disputed Domain Name uses an “e” and the Complainant’s trademark uses an “a”. Rights or legitimate interests The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant further submits that it has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the EMIRATES trademark. In addition, the Respondent is no commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. Finally, the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. Registration and use in bad faith The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is being used as part of an email address where the Respondent is purporting to be the Complainant, including using an infringing logo and signing the email off with “The Emirates Team”. Under this conduct, the Respondent is attempting to direct customers to respond to the Respondent in the mistaken belief that they are contacting the Complainant. In addition, the Disputed Domain Name redirects to the Complainant’s official website; this redirection would likely mislead people into believing that the Disputed Domain Name is the Complainant’s domain name and therefore that the communication came from the Complainant. The Complainant further states that the use of the Disputed Domain Name is clearly disrupting the activities of the Complainant and the Respondent appears to be intentionally attempting to defraud customers by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, association, or affiliation, of the Respondent’s email address by using the Disputed Domain Name. Consequently, the Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name was undoubtedly chosen by the Respondent is an effort to take advantage of the goodwill associated with the Complainant’s trademark. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Disputed Domain Name at issue in this case: (i) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which 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 Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name Moreover, the misspelling is also hardly noticeable and results in a very minor modification of the Complainant’s trademark. This is classic example of typosquatting. As section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) states: “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. (…) Examples of such typos include (i) adjacent keyboard letters, (ii) substitution of similar-appearing characters (e.g., upper vs lower-case letters or numbers used to look like letters), (iii) the use of different letters that appear similar in different fonts, (iv) the use of non-Latin internationalized or accented characters, (v) the inversion of letters and numbers, or (vi) the addition or interspersion of other terms or numbers.” Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name: “(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 at issue.” There is no evidence of the existence of any of those rights or legitimate interests that the Respondent may have in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the Disputed Domain Name or to use the EMIRATES trademark in the Disputed Domain Name. In addition, the Respondent is not known by the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any rights with respect to the Disputed Domain Name. Moreover, the Respondent had the opportunity to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests, but it did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. As such, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the second requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent registered and subsequently used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.The Disputed Domain Name was registered many years after the Complainant’s EMIRATES United Kingdom trademark registration. The Panel is of the view that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith since it is a typographical misspelling of and is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known EMIRATES trademark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights when it registered the Disputed Domain Name. Moreover, the fact that the Disputed Domain Name redirects to the Complainant’s website evidences that the Respondent perfectly knew the Complainant’s trademark. Furthermore, the fact that the Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name as a part of an email address pretending to be the Complainant, contacting customers about a problem with a payment, clearly constitutes bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that it is obvious that the Respondent intentionally created a likelihood confusion with the Complainant’s trademark and website in order to attract Internet users for his own commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Disputed Domain Name 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Therefore, taking all the circumstances into account and for all the above reasons, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name 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 Pablo A. Palazzi
Sole Panelist
Date: January 7, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy