The Complainant is Questrade Inc., Canada, represented internally.
The Respondent is Marvelous Marvin, Hashcontracts, Nigeria. 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 Domain Name. On March 14, 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 27, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 16, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 17, 2020. The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on May 1, 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 carries on business as an online securities brokerage firm. The Complainant is and has been known in the securities brokerage industry for years with a large online presence through its website “www.questrade.com”. The Complainant has since 2005 a Canadian trademark registration in QUESTRADE with registration number TMA647490 for financial and brokerage services. The Complainant has also registered the domain name According to the Registrar, the Domain Name was registered on March 5, 2020. At the time of the Complaint and at the time of drafting the Decision, the Domain Name resolved to a website that seems to offer online financial and investment services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant has a registered trademark right in QUESTRADE. The Complainant argues that the Domain Name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s trademark. Therefore, it is confusingly similar to the trademark. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is not making any legitimate noncommercial use of the Domain Name. The Complainant’s rights to the trademark predate the registration of the Domain Name by years. Further, the nature of the Domain Name cannot constitute fair use because it effectively impersonates and suggests sponsorship and endorsement by the Complainant. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name in bad faith. By using the Complainant’s trademark in the Domain Name, the Respondent has held itself out to be the Complainant. It is clear to the Complainant that the Respondent chose the Domain Name in full awareness of the Complainant’s mark. The potential for harm to the Complainant by the Respondent’s use of the mark in the Domain Name is high. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established rights in the trademark QUESTRADE. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark with the addition of “sfx”. The addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. For assessing confusing similarity, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that is has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark. Based on the evidence, the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired unregistered rights. The way the Respondent has used the Domain Name seems to be to mislead visitors that a relationship exists between the Respondent and the Complainant. This is not bona fide. The Panel finds the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Taking into account the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name, the Panel concludes that the Respondent knew of the Complainant and its business when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. The Complainant has not given the Respondent permission to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent’s use may mislead Internet users. The Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of 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 Domain Name Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: May 8, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy