The Complainant is Corporation Service Company, United States of America (“United States” or “US”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1246865175, Canada / Michael Keenehan, 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 29, 2020. On June 29, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On June 29, 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 July 14, 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 amended Complaint on July 17, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 20, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 9, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 12, 2020. The Center appointed Lynda M. Braun as the sole panelist in this matter on August 20, 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 Headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware, United States, the Complainant has offices throughout the United States, Canada, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. The Complainant is one of the world’s leading provider of business, legal, financial and digital brand services to companies worldwide. The Complainant was founded in 1899 by two Delaware attorneys who saw an opportunity to simplify the way corporations were formed, operated and maintained compliance. Through the years, the Complainant has helped establish Delaware as the legal home to thousands of major corporations. Over more than a century, the Complainant has expanded its offerings to include an impressive array of enterprise-specific solutions. In May 2017, the Complainant launched a major rebranding under the name “CSC” and changed its logo. The Complainant is known internationally and is the owner of trademark registrations across various jurisdictions. For example, among others, the Complainant owns the following trademarks in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and the European Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”): TRADEMARK JURISDICTION/ REGISTRATION REGISTRATION IC CLASS CSCGLOBAL US / USPTO 3843672 September 7, 2010 35, 45 CSC US / USPTO 2827193 March 30, 2004 35, 42 CSC US / USPTO 4418594 October 15, 2013 45 CSC & Device US / USPTO 2630508 October 8, 2002 35, 42 CSC & Device European Union / EUIPO 015194319 March 9, 2017 35, 36, 38, 42, 45 The foregoing trademark registrations are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “CSCGLOBAL Mark”. The Complainant filed for registration of its CSCGLOBAL Mark with the USPTO and EUIPO after the Complainant’s first use in commerce of its trademarks in 1996. The Complainant registered its The Disputed Domain Name was registered on April 6, 2020 and resolves to a landing page that contains no active content. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The following are the Complainant’s contentions: - the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks; - the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; - the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith; and - the Complainant seeks the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent to the Complainant in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order for the Complainant to prevail and have the Disputed Domain Name transferred to the Complainant, the Complainant must prove the following (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i-iii)): (i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and (iii) the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. The Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CSCGLOBAL Mark. It is uncontroverted that the Complainant has established rights in the CSCGLOBAL Mark based on years of use as well as its registered trademarks for the CSCGLOBAL Mark worldwide. The general rule is that “registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive”. See CWI, Inc. v. Domain Administrator c/o Dynadot,WIPO Case No. D2015-1734. The Respondent has not rebutted this presumption, and therefore the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the CSCGLOBAL Mark. The Disputed Domain Name Further, the addition of a gTLD such as “.com” in a domain name is technically required. Thus, it is well established that such element may typically be disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. See Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. Proactiva,WIPO Case No. D2012-0182. Thus, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CSCGLOBAL Mark. Accordingly, the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, a complainant has to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of production of evidence that demonstrates rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant may be deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. There is no evidence in the record suggesting that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s CSCGLOBAL Mark. The Complainant does not have any business relationship with the Respondent, nor is the Respondent making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. Based on the use made of the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to an inactive landing page, the Panel finds that the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services nor making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. There is also no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by any name similar to it. In this case, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent has not submitted any substantive arguments or evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case. As such, the Panel determines that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that based on the record, the Complainant has demonstrated the existence of the Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy. First, the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name that contains a misspelling of the CSCGLOBAL Mark in an effort to take advantage of a typographical error is evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Nutricia International BV v. Eric Starling,WIPO Case No. D2015-0773. The Panel concludes that the Respondent knew about the Complainant’s rights in the CSCGLOBAL Mark when it registered the Disputed Domain Name, since it replaced the letter “a” with the letter “u” in the word “global” to misdirect users from the Complainant’s website to the Respondent’s webpage by capitalizing on typing mistakes made by users. See ESPN, Inc. v. XC2,WIPO Case No. D2005-0444 (“It is well-settled that the practice of typosquatting, of itself, is evidence of the bad faith registration of a domain name.”). Second, inactive or passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent may amount to bad faith use. See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. and Les Publications Condé Nast S.A. v. ChinaVogue.com,WIPO Case No. D2005-0615; Société pour l’Oeuvre et la Mémoire d’Antoine de Saint Exupéry – Succession Saint Exupéry – D’Agay v. Perlegos Properties,WIPO Case No. D2005-1085. It has long been held in UDRP decisions that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a well-known trademark without a legitimate purpose may indicate that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Jupiters Limited v. Aaron Hall,WIPO Case No. D2000-0574. Here, the Disputed Domain Name currently resolves to an inactive landing page, thus demonstrating bad faith. Finally, the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark by an entity that has no relationship to that mark may be sufficient evidence of opportunistic bad faith. See Ebay Inc. v. Wangming,WIPO Case No. D2006-1107; Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0163. 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 Lynda M. Braun
TM OFFICE
NUMBER
DATE
Sole Panelist
Date: August 27, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy