The Complainant is Magpul Industries Corp., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Sideman & Bancroft LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service Ltd c/o Dynadot, 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 February 25, 2020. On February 25, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 26, 2020, 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 March 5, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 25, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 29, 2020. The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on April 15, 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 worldwide merchant of firearm accessories, clothing, sunglasses, and gloves. The Complaintant owns a number of registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for a variety of products offered under the mark MAGPUL (the “Mark’). The Complainant’s first registration of the Mark was on November 25, 2014 under registration number 4645326 and reflected a first use date of June 21, 1999. The Complainant also owns the domain name The disputed domain name was registered on January 16, 2020. The disputed domain name resolves to a website offering for sale a wide variety of consumer products. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant asserts the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark because the disputed domain name is composed of the Mark plus the mere addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “online”. The Complainant asserts that the Complainant never authorized the Respondent to use the Mark, that the Respondent is not known by the Mark, and that the Respondent has never engaged in any bona fide commercial activity in connection with the Mark. The Complainant also asserts the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith to lure unsuspecting Internet users to the Respondent’s website to sell a variety of products and services. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that: (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 was registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark. The disputed domain name is composed merely by the addition of the gTLD “online” to the Mark. A domain name which wholly incorporates a complainant's registered mark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy. See Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin,WIPO Case No. D2003-0888. Moreover, a gTLD suffix does not dispel confusing similarity. “The applicable Top-Level Domain in a domain name (e.g., ‘.com’, ‘.club’, ‘.nyc’) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test.” WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11. See also Research In Motion Limited v. One Star Global LLC,WIPO Case No. D2008-1752 (addition of gTLD does not dispel confusion). The Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has specifically disavowed providing the Respondent with permission to use the disputed domain name or the Mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent has conducted any bona fide business under the disputed domain name. Indeed, it appears from the “Terms and Conditions” section of the Respondent’s website that the Respondent’s name is “Alcoveofauburn”. An inference thus arises that the Mark was registered in bad faith to attract unsuspecting Internet users to the Respondent’s website. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1 (“Generally speaking, UDRP panels have found that domain names identical to a complainant’s trademark carry a high risk of implied affiliation.”). The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint and has failed to come forth with any evidence showing any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. The Panel finds on the evidence presented that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to falsely lure and attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark and the disputed domain name resolves to a website offering for online sale a variety of consumer goods. The actual name of the Respondent was concealed when registering the disputed domain name. While not in and of itself an indication of bad faith registration and use, given the Complainant’s distinctive and well-known Mark, it is difficult to conceive of any use that the Respondent might make of the disputed domain name without the Complainant’s consent that would not involve bad faith. (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003). The Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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 William F. Hamilton
Sole Panelist
Date: April 26, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy