The Complainant is Salesforce.com, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Winterfeldt IP Group PLLC, United States.
The Respondent is Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., Bahamas. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Disputed Domain Name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 22, 2020. On May 22, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On May 25, 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 June 11, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 1, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 2, 2020. The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on July 8, 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 Salesforce.com, Inc., is a corporation with it is global headquarters in San Francisco, California, United States. The Complainant was founded in 1999. Moreover, the Complainant provides customer relationship management (CRM) and a variety of other cloud-based software-as-a-service products to over 150,000 companies worldwide. In addition to its San Francisco global headquarters, the Complainant has regional headquarters in Morges, Switzerland, Hyderabad, India, and Tokyo, Japan. Other major Salesforce offices are located in Toronto, Chicago, New York City, London, Sydney, and Dublin. The Complainant owns trademarks registrations in various jurisdictions around the world for SALESFORCE and SALESFORCE.COM trademarks, which include, but are not limited to, the following: - SALESFORCE (United States Reg. No. 2,964,712) in Classes 35 and 42, used in commerce since September 27, 1999 and registered on July 5, 2005; - SALESFORCE (United States Reg. No. 3,138,749) in Class 9, used in commerce since 2005 and registered on September 5, 2006; - SALESFORCE (Japan Reg. No. 5746574) in Classes 25 and 36, registered on March 6, 2015; and - SALESFORCE.COM (Int. Reg. No. 0831947) in Classes 35 and 42, registered on May 3, 2004). Furthermore, the Complainant also owns numerous domain names that include the SALESFORCE trademarks, among others: - The Disputed Domain Name The Complainants contentions can be summarized as follows: Identical or confusingly similar The Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant SALESFORCE and SALESFORCE.COM trademarks. The only difference between Complainant’s trademarks is that the Disputed Domain Name omits the final letter “e”, and the addition of the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension. In this sense, the Disputed Domain Name contains the Complainant’s trademarks in its entirety with an obvious typographical variation. Rights or legitimate interest The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. In addition, the Respondent is neither associated with the Complainant, nor has it been authorized by Complainant to use its trademarks in any manner. The fact that the Respondent willfully adopted Complainant’s trademark within the Disputed Domain Name is an attempt to unfairly capitalize on the valuable goodwill Complainant has built in its trademarks. In addition, the Disputed Domain Name does not reflect Respondent’s common name or organization name. Finally, the Disputed Domain Name has not been used in connection with any bona fide sale of goods or services, nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Registration and use in bad faith The Complainant alleges that the Respondent registered and uses the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith since the Disputed Domain Name is advertised and listed for sale to the general public, including through the DomainTools platform and Sedo domain name marketplace. The Complainant further states that the Disputed Domain Name is being used to generate web traffic monetization fees for Respondent in connection with various revolving content. Finally, the Complainant states that Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademarks prior to the registration of the Disputed Domain Name, given the well-known nature of the Complainant’s trademarks, which is another evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Disputed Domain Name in this case: (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 has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name Moreover, the misspelling is also hardly noticeable and results in a very minor modification of the Complainant’s trademark. This is a classic example of typosquatting. As section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) states: “A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. (…) Examples of such typos include (i) adjacent keyboard letters, (ii) substitution of similar-appearing characters (e.g., upper vs lower-case letters or numbers used to look like letters), (iii) the use of different letters that appear similar in different fonts, (iv) the use of non-Latin internationalized or accented characters, (v) the inversion of letters and numbers, or (vi) the addition or interspersion of other terms or numbers.” The elimination of the letter “e” and the addition of the gTLD “.com” do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name: (i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service at issue. There is no evidence of the existence of any of those rights or legitimate interests. The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the Disputed Domain Name or to use the trademark in the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has prior rights in the trademark, which precede the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name. In addition, the Respondent is not known by the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any rights with respect to the Disputed Domain Name. Moreover, it had the opportunity to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests, but it did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. As such, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the second requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent registered and subsequently used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on June 7, 2005, while the Complainant’s has been using the SALESFORCE trademark since 1999. The Panel is of the view that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith since it contains an intentionally typographical misspelling of the Complainant’s well-known SALESFORCE and SALESFORCE.COM trademarks, and is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights when it registered the Disputed Domain Name. The circumstances in the case before this Panel indicate that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the Disputed Domain Name and it has registered the Disputed Domain Name being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, with the intention of causing likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s SALESFORCE and SALESFORCE.COM trademarks, in order to attract Internet users for its own commercial gain. Regarding the use of the Disputed Domain Name, the Complainant has produced evidence that the Disputed Domain Name was offered for sale. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered or acquired the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant, who is the owner of the trademark SALESFORCE and SALESFORCE.COM, or to a competitor of the Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of his documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name, according the paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. Therefore, taking all circumstances into account and for all above reasons, this Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. 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, Pablo A. Palazzi
-
-
-
In addition, the Complainant has produced evidence that the Disputed Domain Name was being used to generate web traffic monetization fees for Respondent in connection with various revolving content, which is an example of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Furthermore, the failure of the Respondent to submit a response, and the implausibility of any good faith use to which the Disputed Domain Name may be put, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name has been used in bad faith.
Sole Panelist
Date: July 17, 2020.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy