The Complainant is Koninklijke Douwe Egberts B.V., the Netherlands, represented by Ploum, the Netherlands.
The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1246034452 / Julie Miedtke, 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 March 13, 2020. On March 13, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On the same day, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 18, 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 amendment to the Complaint on March 19, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 26, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 15, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent of her default on April 16, 2020. The Center appointed Gabriela Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on May 4, 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 an international coffee and tea company based in the Netherlands and specializes in processing and trading in coffee, tea and other foods, activities it has undertaken since 1753. The Complainant is the owner of numerous trade mark registrations for the JDE mark in various jurisdictions, including, inter alia, the JDE trade mark, International registration no. 1248744, registered on April 16, 2015, covering goods and services in several classes and protected in various countries, including classes 7, 11, 21, 29, 30, 32 and 43 in the United States (added to international registration on February 23, 2016). The Complainant also owns and operates various domain names corresponding to and/or containing the word JDE, including but not limited to The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on December 8, 2019. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant’s primary contentions can be summarised as follows: (a) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trade mark JDE, which has been wholly incorporated into the Disputed Domain Name, with the addition of the word “ooffee” which appears to be an intentional misspelling of the descriptive word “coffee”; (b) the Respondent was not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant has never authorised or given permission to the Respondent, who is not connected with the Complainant in any way, to use its JDE trade mark, therefore the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name; and (c) the reputation and distinctiveness of the Complainant’s JDE trade mark, combined with the fact that the Disputed Domain Name was registered by the Respondent using a privacy shield to conceal her identity in the WhoIs records, support the fact that the Respondent is acting in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. The fact that the Respondent has not submitted a formal Response does not automatically result in a decision in favour of the Complainant. However, the Respondent’s failure to file a Response may result in the Panel drawing appropriate inferences from such default. The Panel may also accept all reasonable and supported allegations and inferences flowing from the Complaint as true (see Entertainment Shopping AG v. Nischal Soni, Sonik Technologies,WIPO Case No. D2009-1437 and Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM,WIPO Case No. D2000-0403). 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove each of the following three elements: (i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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 by the Respondent in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the JDE trade mark, based on its various trade mark registrations. It is well established that in making an enquiry as to whether a trade mark is identical or confusingly similar to a domain name, the Top-Level Domain extension (“.com” in this case) may be disregarded. See section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s JDE mark in its entirety with the addition of the word “ooffee”. UDRP panels have consistently found that the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) to a mark will not alter the fact that the domain name at issue is confusingly similar to the mark in question. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Given that coffee is the key product for which the JDE trade mark is used, the Panel agrees with the Complainant that the word “ooffee” is likely to be an intentional misspelling by the Respondent of the word “coffee”. The Panel therefore agrees with the Complainant that the mere addition of the word “ooffee” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s trade mark. The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s JDE trade mark, and accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Once a complainant establishes a prima facie case in respect of the lack of rights or legitimate interests of a respondent in a disputed domain name, the respondent then carries the burden of demonstrating that it has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Where the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. The Panel accepts that the Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to use the JDE mark, and that there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent which would otherwise entitle the Respondent to use the JDE mark. The Panel is of the view that a prima facie case has been made and it is for the Respondent to show rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. As the Respondent has not submitted a Response, the Panel will assess the case based on the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the Complainant’s evidence. Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the Respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name by demonstrating any of the following: (i) before any notice to him of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name was in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; (ii) the Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, even if he has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or (iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue. There is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name was in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, since the Disputed Domain Name does not resolve to any active website and does not appear to have a working IP address associated to it. Therefore, it cannot be said that such use by the Respondent constitutes a bona fide offering of goods or services. There is also no evidence that the Respondent has trade mark rights corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name, or that she has become known by the Disputed Domain Name. Further, no evidence has been provided to suggest that the Disputed Domain Name has been used in connection with any legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a widely-known trade mark by an unaffiliated entity (particularly domain names which incorporate a mark plus a descriptive term) can already by itself create a presumption of bad faith. See paragraph 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. As such, the fact that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s JDE mark in its entirety with the addition of a descriptive term already creates a presumption of bad faith. The Complainant’s JDE trade mark is also fairly well-known. A quick Internet search conducted by the Panel shows that the top search results returned for the keyword “JDE Coffee” are the Complainant’s websites and several news websites featuring the Complainant’s business. The Complainant also owns and operates the domain name Furthermore, the fact that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name using a privacy shield to conceal her identity in the WhoIs records also supports an inference of bad faith (see Primonial v. Domain Administrator, PrivacyGuardian.org / Parla Turkmenoglu,WIPO Case No. D2019-0193). In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and has been using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith, and paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied. 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, Gabriela Kennedy
Sole Panelist
Date: May 18, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy