The Complainant is Contentful GmbH, Germany, represented by Boehmert & Boehmert, Germany.
The Respondent is Jan Everno, The Management Group II, United States of America. 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 30, 2020. On March 31, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 1, 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 April 2, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 22, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 24, 2020. The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on May 25, 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 Since 2013, the Complainant has distributed a content management system called “Contentful”. The Complainant owns a number of trade marks for CONTENTFUL, including European Union Trade Mark No. 011421328, filed December 13, 2012, and registered April 29, 2013, in classes 9, 35, and 42. The Complainant operates a website at “www.contentful.com”. The disputed domain name was registered on July 9, 2017. It has since been used for a gambling website as well as for a website offering browser extension downloads. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant A summary of the Complainant’s contentions is as follows: The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark as it is an obvious misspelling thereof. The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to use its trade marks. The Respondent’s website does not qualify as a bona fide offering or fair use. The disputed domain name has been used for fraudulent purposes. The fact that the disputed domain name constitutes typosquatting is a further indication of a lack of legitimate interest. The Respondent’s behaviour indicates a clear intent to obtain unfair commercial gain by misleadingly diverting the Complainant’s customers. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. It is obvious from the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trade mark when registering the disputed domain name. It is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without becoming aware of the Complainant’s own domain name. The fact that the disputed domain name is being used for typosquatting to divert users to changing and dubious websites which are most likely being used for scamming or spreading malware is evidence of bad faith. The Respondent is a serial cyber-squatter who has been found to have registered and used domain names targeting well-known trade marks, including by means of typosquatting. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that: - the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights; - the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and - the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established rights in the mark CONTENTFUL by virtue of its registered trade marks. Section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) makes clear that a domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trade mark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. The Panel considers that the disputed domain name is an obvious misspelling of the disputed domain name as it omits the second letter “T” but is otherwise identical to the Complainant’s trade mark. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests As explained in section 2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0 , the consensus view is that, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If not, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. Here, the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorised the Respondent to use its trade mark. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy gives examples of circumstances, which, if proved, suffice to demonstrate that a respondent possesses rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. As to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, the disputed domain name has been used as part of a typosquatting scheme to mislead Internet users, most likely with the aim of distributing malware or for similar illicit purposes. See further under section 6C below. Such use of the disputed domain name cannot confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent. Nor is there any evidence that paragraphs 4(c)(ii) or (iii) of the Policy apply in the circumstances of this case. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case of lack of rights or legitimate interests and there is no rebuttal by the Respondent. The Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the Complainant has therefore established the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel has little difficulty in concluding that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. As mentioned above, the disputed domain name consists of an obvious typosquatting variation of the Complainant’s distinctive trade mark. It has been used for a website, which was most likely intended to distribute malware or for other illicit purposes. Furthermore, the Respondent has been found to have registered and used domain names in bad faith in many other UDRP cases, including by means of typosquatting. The Respondent has not come forward to deny the Complainant’s assertions of bad faith, let alone to put forward any legitimate reason for registering and using the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the third element of paragraph 4(a) 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 Adam Taylor
Sole Panelist
Date: June 8, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy