The Complainant is Allen & Overy LLP, United Kingdom, represented internally.
The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1246369198, Canada / Sri Hamid, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 17, 2020. On February 17, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 17, 2020, 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 February 20, 2020 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 February 24, 2020. 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 February 26, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 17, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 2, 2020. The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on April 9, 2020. 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 leading global law firm founded in the City of London on January 1, 1930 by George Allen and Thomas Overy. It operates more than 40 offices across 31 countries in Europe, America, Asia Pacific and the Middle East. The Complainant comprises 5,400 people worldwide. Throughout its 90 year history, it has traded consistently under the brand “Allen & Overy”. The Complainant is the proprietor of numerous registered trademarks globally comprising “Allen” and “Overy”, including European Union trademarks number 001500669 ALLEN & OVERY registered on May 22, 2001 and number 010411189 ALLENOVERY registered on March 21, 2012. The Complainant’s primary online presence is at its website at “www.allenovery.com”. The website contains information about the Complainant’s practices, lawyers, locations and further expertise. The Domain Name was registered on January 30, 2020. It does not resolve to an active website. However, it has been used to send emails to a client of the Complainant from an email address “…@alenovrry.com” incorporating the name of a partner of the Complainant and purporting to be sent by that partner. The initial email was a fraudulent email demanding payment of a fictitious invoice of the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its ALLEN & OVERY and ALLENOVERY trademarks (the “Marks”), that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the 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 Complainant has uncontested rights in the Marks, both by virtue of its many trademark registrations and as a result of its goodwill and reputation acquired through use of the ALLEN & OVERY mark over 90 years. Ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, the Domain Name comprises the words “Allen” and “Overy” with both words slightly misspelt. “Allen” is missing a letter “l” and the letter “e” of “Overy” is replaced by a second “r”. In the Panel’s view, these minor misspellings do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Marks. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has submitted strong evidence that the Respondent can have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. It has provided evidence that the Respondent is using the Domain Name to establish a mail server to send deceitful emails seeking to defraud recipients into paying fictitious invoices of the Complainant. By using a name confusingly similar to that of the Complainant, and an email address differing from that of the Complainant only by minor misspellings, the Respondent has sought to mislead recipients into believing that they were dealing with the Complainant. The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint and has accordingly failed to counter the case established by the Complainant. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel considers that there is no doubt that the Respondent had the Complainant in mind when it registered the Domain Name and that it did so with the intention of using the Domain Name to deceive email recipients into believing that the emails were sent by the Complainant and that the Domain Name was registered by or associated with the Complainant. The Respondent has used the Complainant’s name in a fraudulent attempt to lure the recipients into making substantial payments. This amounts to paradigm bad faith registration and use for the purposes of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the 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 Domain Name Ian Lowe
Sole Panelist
Date: April 20, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy