The Complainant is Afton Chemical Corporation, United States of America (“United States”), represented internally.
The Respondent is alex martins, Sweden. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 10, 2020. On August 10, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 11, 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 August 12, 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 August 13, 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 August 17, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 6, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 7, 2020. The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on September 10, 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 is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, United States. It is a developer and manufacturer of chemical products including fuel and lubricant additives. The Complainant is the owner of various registrations for the trademark AFTON CHEMICAL, including United States trademark number 3059527 for the standard character mark AFTON CHEMICAL, registered on February 14, 2006, in International Class 35. The disputed domain name was registered on July 29, 2020. It does not appear to have resolved to any active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant submits that it is a premier global corporation with offices in 18 countries around the world and that it has developed a worldwide reputation in its field. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical to its AFTON CHEMICAL trademark save for the reversal of the letters “o” and “n”, which it contends is an obvious example of “typosquatting”. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that it has never authorized the Respondent to use its AFTON CHEMICAL trademark, that the Respondent has not been known by a name corresponding to the disputed domain name and that the Respondent is making neither bona fide commercial use nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It submits that the disputed domain name comprises a deliberate misspelling of the Complainant’s name and trademark and that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for the purpose of an email “phishing” scam. In particular, the Complainant submits evidence that the Respondent has impersonated the Complainant’s credit supervisor by way of fraudulent emails from an address associated with the disputed domain name, sent to the Complainant’s business partners and requesting payments to be made to an unauthorized bank account. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name In the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions set out above give rise to a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not participated in this proceeding and has not, therefore, submitted any explanation for its registration and use of the disputed domain name, or evidence of rights or legitimate interests on its part in the disputed domain name, whether in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. There being no other evidence before the Panel of any such rights or legitimate interests, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that the Complainant’s trademark AFTON CHEMICAL is distinctive and internationally known in connection with the Complainant’s products and can conceive of no explanation for the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name other than to impersonate the Complainant. The deliberate misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark is further evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith intent, by way of “typosquatting” intended to mislead Internet users. The Panel also accepts the Complainant’s evidence, which the Respondent has not disputed, that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for the purpose of fraudulent emails sent to the Complainant’s business partners, impersonating the Complainant’s credit controller and requesting that payment be made to an unauthorized bank account. Such use of the disputed domain name clearly constitutes use in bad faith. The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used 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, Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: September 14, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy