Complainant is Sunrise Senior Living, LLC., United States of America (“United States” or “U.S”), represented by Snell & Wilmer, LLP, United States..
Respondent is Krishan Munish aka Munish Krishan, Manila Industries, Inc., 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 June 11, 2020. On June 12, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 15, 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 June 30, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 20, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on July 21, 2020. The Center appointed Lawrence K. Nodine as the sole panelist in this matter on August 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 Operating hundreds of senior living facilities, Complainant is one of the largest senior living service providers in the United States. Since 1981, Complainant has used the marks SUNRISE and SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING (collectively, the “Marks”) in connection with various senior living services, including assisted living services, skilled nursing services, and retirement home services. Over the decades, Complainant has invested millions of dollars in advertising and promoting the SUNRISE and SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING brands. Complainant owns multiple service mark registrations for its Marks, including United States Registration No. 2,313,763 for SUNRISE, registered on February 1, 2000; United States Registration No. 2,669,992 for SUNRISE, registered on December 31, 2002; and United States Registration No. 2,850,729 for SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, registered on June 8, 2004. In addition, Complainant owns and operates a website at the domain name Respondent registered the disputed domain name on October 18, 2005. The disputed domain name leads to a pay-per-click (“PPC”) website featuring links to the websites of Complainant’s competitors and other senior living service providers. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s SUNRISE and SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING marks. According to Complainant, the addition of the letter “s” in the disputed domain name constitutes typosquatting and does not reduce the confusing similarity between Complainant’s Marks and the disputed domain name. Complainant also asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by “Sunrises,” “Sunrises Senior Living,” or any variations thereof and that Complainant has not authorized Respondent’s use of Complainant’s Marks. Further, according to Complainant, the addition of the single letter “s” to the term “sunrise” is obvious evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in a bad faith attempt to divert Internet traffic intending to reach Complainant to Respondent’s own website. Additionally, Complainant contends that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, as evinced by the pay-per-click links relating to senior living services on Respondent’s website. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that Complainant has established its rights in the SUNRISE and SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING marks by way of its trademark registrations, including United States registration Nos. 2, 313,763 and 2,850,729. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Marks. The addition of the letter “s” does nothing to dispel the confusing similarity. Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has presented a prima facie case for Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which Respondent has failed to rebut. Moreover, Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in connection with a PPC website is not a legitimate of bona fide use. SeeWIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.9. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name consists of Complainant’s entire SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING mark, along with an additional letter “s” before “senior.” Given the similarity between Complainant’s Marks and the disputed domain name, as well as the fact that Complainant’s use of its Marks predates Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, it is more likely than not that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intent to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s Marks. It is highly likely that the disputed domain name is an intentional misspelling of Complainant’s own domain name. See Government Employees Insurance Company v. Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2018-2527. The Panel also finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in connection with a website with pay-per-click links for services competitive with Complainant’s services demonstrates bad faith use. See id., Wayfair LLC v. Xiamen Privacy Protection Service Co., Ltd. / zhang qin,WIPO Case No. D2018-2032. 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: August 25, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy