Complainant is Colgate-Palmolive Company (“Colgate”) and Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc. (“Hill’s”), United States of America (“United States”), represented by Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, PC, United States.
Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc., Canada / Sachin Kanodia, colpal, United States. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 21, 2019. On November 22, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On November 25, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on November 25, 2019, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 26, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 16, 2019. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on December 17, 2019. The Center appointed Robert A. Badgley as the sole panelist in this matter on December 19, 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 Complainant is a corporation resulting from the 1928 merger of Colgate & Co. (a manufacturer of soaps since 1806) and Palmolive & Peet (a manufacturer of soaps since 1898). In 1953, Complainant’s name was changed to Colgate-Palmolive Co. Complainant and its predecessors have been major manufacturers of soaps, detergents, toothpaste, deodorants, and other household and personal care products for more than a century. Complainant owns hundreds of longstanding trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and in other countries for the marks COLGATE (including USPTO Reg. No. 60,595 dated February 12, 1907) and PALMOLIVE (including USPTO Reg. No. 210,594 dated March 16, 1946). Complainant operates in 200 countries, and its global sales in 2018 exceeded USD 15.5 billion. Complainant maintains a website at “www.colgatepalmolive.com” and links the domain name In 1976, Complainant purchased Hill’s Pet Nutrition, a pet food manufacturer under various names since the 1930s. Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations for HILL’S, including USPTO Reg. No. 955,342 dated February 13, 1937. Complainant operates a commercial website at the domain name The Domain Names were registered on October 8, 2019, and October 23, 2019. The Domain Names do not resolve to an active website. Respondent has, however, used the Domain Names for email purposes. According to Complainant, Respondent has used the Domain Names to conduct a fraudulent phishing scam. Respondent uses the Domain Names to impersonate a Complainant employee who asks a customer to pay a fake invoice to a bank account not owned by Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied the three elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Names. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings For each of the Domain Names, paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Names: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the marks COLGATE, PALMOLIVE, and HILL’S through longstanding registration and use demonstrated in the record. The Panel concludes further that the COLGATE and PALMOLIVE marks a very well-known marks. The Panel also finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. The Domain Name Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests For each of the Domain Names, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements: (i) before any notice to you [Respondent] 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 The Panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names. Respondent has not come forward in this proceeding to articulate why he registered the Domain Names or otherwise explain his bona fides. The undisputed record shows that Respondent is unaffiliated with Complainant, and that Respondent has used the Domain Names to perpetrate a fraudulent phishing scam on Complainant customers by using the Domain Names to impersonate a Complainant employee. Such vile conduct obviously does not reflect rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith For each of the Domain Names, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation,” are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Names in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Names in bad faith. The Panel incorporates here its observations above in the rights or legitimate interests section. It is apparent from this undisputed record that Respondent has targeted Complainant’s trademarks, and has acted from bad faith motives, being engaged in a fraudulent phishing scam. At a minimum, bad faith under the above-quoted Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv) is established on this record. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 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 Domain Names Robert A. Badgley
(ii) you [Respondent] (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 [Respondent] 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 mark at issue.
(ii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location.
Sole Panelist
Date: December 27, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy