Complainant is AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, United States.
Respondent is John Lubega, Plush Electronics, 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 31, 2020. On April 1, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On April 3, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 6, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 26, 2020. On April 12 and 15, 2020, the Center received two email communications from Respondent. Respondent did not submit a formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified Commencement of Panel Appointment Process on April 27, 2020. The Center appointed Lawrence K. Nodine as the sole panelist in this matter on May 11, 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 Founded in 1884, Complainant is a chemicals manufacturer that produces coal chemicals, fertilizers, and nylon resins. Complainant operates one of the largest product sites for nylon resin in the United States. Complainant’s gross sales amounted to over USD 1.3 billion by the end of 2019. In 2016, Complainant announced a reorganization for its business and its new house mark, ADVANSIX. Since Complainant began using its ADVANSIX trademark, it has obtained 43 trademark registrations for the mark in multiple jurisdictions, including United States Registration No. 5,321,829, registered on October 31, 2017. Complainant’s primary domain names for its website are Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on March 3, 2020. The Disputed Domain Name redirects to Complainant’s website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is an intentional misspelling of Complainant’s ADVANSIX trademark. According to Complainant, the Disputed Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s entire trademark and is therefore confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. Complainant further contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant asserts that Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name for a legitimate business purpose because the Disputed Domain Name redirects to Complainant’s website. Additionally, Complainant asserts that there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name and Complainant has not authorized Respondent’s use of Complainant’s ADVANSIX trademark. Complainant also contends that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Complainant alleges that Respondent’s registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark is a bad faith attempt to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark. Further, Complainant asserts that Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith as evidenced by the redirection of the Disputed Domain Name to Complainant’s website. Finally, Complainant alleges that Respondent provided false information in the WhoIs database, as Complainant was unable to locate corporate records for Respondent’s business or confirm the existence of Respondent’s business at the address provided by Respondent. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a formal response to the Complaint. In the informal responses to the Center’s notification of the Complaint, Respondent did not deny any of Complainant’s allegations. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ADVANSIX mark. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s ADVANSIX mark in its entirety. The addition of the letter “i” in the Disputed Domain Name does not obviate the confusing similarity. Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has established a prima facie case for Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, which Respondent has failed to rebut. There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. Additionally, Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent’s use of Complainant’s ADVANSIX trademark in the Disputed Domain Name. Redirecting the Disputed Domain Name to Complainant’s website does not confer rights or legitimate interests upon Respondent. GameStop, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Protection Domain,WIPO Case No. D2018-1243. Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The Disputed Domain Name consists of a misspelling of Complainant’s ADVANSIX trademark. Respondent informally responded, but did deny the allegation that the misspelling was intentional. And, of course, by redirecting Internet visitors to Complainant’s website, Respondent’s actions admit an awareness of Complainant. These facts support the inference that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s rights and intentionally registered the misspelling in a bad faith attempt to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark. “[T]yposquatting is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith.” GameStop, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Protection Domain, supra, quoting National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues, Inc., d/b/a Minor League Baseball v. John Zuccarini,WIPO Case No. D2002-1011. Respondent has also used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The use of the Disputed Domain Name to redirect visitors to Complainant’s website is bad faith use. Redirecting the Disputed Domain Name to Complainant’s website increases the likelihood that Internet users will believe the Disputed Domain Name is associated with Complainant. GameStop, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Protection Domain, supra; Ziprecruiter Inc. v. Lynda Drysdale, WIPO Case No. D2020-0361. See also WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 3.1.4 (UDRP panels have based a finding of bad faith use on, inter alia, “(v) redirecting the domain name to the complainant’s (or a competitor’s) website, and (vi) absence of any conceivable good faith use.”) Furthermore, “[s]uch behavior includes the risk that the Respondent may at any time cause Internet traffic to redirect to a website that is not that of, or associated with, the Complainant […] and may increase customer confusion that the Disputed Domain Name is somehow licensed or controlled by the Complainant […]” Intercontinental Hotels Group PLC, Six Continents Hotels, Inc., Six Continents Limited v. Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp. / Maddisyn Fernandes, Fernandes Privacy Holdings,WIPO Case No. D2017-1072. The Panel also finds, in the absence of a benign explanation from Respondent, that redirection of a domain name comprised of a hard to detect misspelling could facilitate a bad faith phishing scheme. Complainant has satisfied 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 Lawrence K. Nodine
Sole Panelist
Date: May 25, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy