The Complainant is Reckitt & Colman (Overseas) Health Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Studio Barbero, Italy.
The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / zaghdad mohamed amine, zaghdad, Morocco. 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 19, 2020. On June 22, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 22, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 24, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on June 25, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 July 15, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 4, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 5, 2020. The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on August 13, 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 manufactures and sells cleaning supplies, disinfectant, and germ protection products under the mark DETTOL, which has been in use for more than 80 years. The Complainant owns a number of registrations for the DETTOL mark in several jurisdictions, including International Trademark Reg. No. 1051284, issued June 11, 2010. The disputed domain name was registered on April 26, 2020. The disputed domain name has been used to set up a website publishing images of DETTOL products and allegedly providing users with the possibility to receive free samples of such products. When a visitor to the website clicks on a “Get it Now” link, he or she is directed to other websites where they are invited to complete a survey and provide their personal data in order to gain prizes unrelated to DETTOL products. The Respondent did not reply to a cease and desist letter the Complainant sent concerning the use of the disputed domain name. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and, that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (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 A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certificate belong to its respective owner. See, Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., Les Publications Conde Nast S.A. v. Voguechen,WIPO Case No. D2014-0657. The Complainant has demonstrated its rights in the DETTOL mark by providing evidence of its numerous trademark registrations. The disputed domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety. This is sufficient for showing confusing similarity under the Policy. The presence of the word “free” in the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The Complainant has established this first element under the policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel evaluates this element of the Policy by first looking to see whether the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of production to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests shifts to the Respondent. The Complainant has established, prima facie, that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. On this point, the Complainant asserts, among other things, that: - The Respondent is not a licensee, an authorized agent of the Complainant, or in any other way authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark DETTOL. - The Complainant is not in possession of, nor aware of the existence of any evidence demonstrating that the Respondent might be commonly known by a name corresponding to the disputed domain name as an individual, business, or other organization. - The Respondent has not provided any evidence of use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services before or after any notice of this dispute. - It is suspected that the Respondent is engaged in a phishing scheme, a practice intended to defraud consumers into revealing personal and proprietary information. Consequently, the disputed domain name is not used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. These facts make the Complainant’s prima facie showing. The Respondent has not provided any evidence that rebuts this prima facie showing. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established this second element under the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Policy requires the Complainant to establish that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Policy describes several non-exhaustive circumstances demonstrating a respondent’s bad faith registration and use. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, a panel may find bad faith when a respondent “[uses] the domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [respondent’s] website or location or a product or service on [respondent’s] website or location”. It is clear that the Respondent targeted the Complainant and its well-known mark when it registered the disputed domain name and set up the website that appears at the disputed domain name. The Panel finds it more likely true than not that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for phishing purposes. Registering and using a domain name containing a mark confusingly similar to a well-known brand, to engage in a phishing scheme, is a clear a clear example of bad faith under the Policy. The Complainant has successfully established the third UDRP element. 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 Evan D. Brown
Sole Panelist
Date: August 26, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy