The Complainant is Technisem, France, represented by Cabinet Bouchara, France.
The Respondent is Wire Lord, United States of America (“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 August 13, 2020. On August 13, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 13, 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 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 Alistair Payne as the sole panelist in this matter on September 23, 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 has operated in the business of producing and marketing vegetable seeds for tropical regions for more than 35 years. It owns various trade mark registrations internationally for its TECHNISEM trade mark including French trade mark registration number 3696807 for TECHNISEM registered on December 7, 2009. The Complainant has since September 21, 1999 owned the domain name The disputed domain name was registered on July 8, 2020. It diverts to a placeholder website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant submits that it owns registered trade mark rights for its TECHNISEM trade mark as noted above. It says that the disputed domain name is almost identical to this trade mark apart from the misspelling of the middle “i” for an “l”. The Complainant submits that this misspelling amounts to typosquatting and that on a QWERTY or AZERTY keyboard the “l” is next to the “i”. As a consequence it asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark registration. The Complainant says that the Respondent does not own rights in any trade marks equivalent to the disputed domain name and has not obtained the Complainant’s authorization to reproduce and imitate the Complainant’s trade mark within the disputed domain name. It says that this amounts to a case of typosquatting which is illegitimate and in circumstances that the disputed domain name is being used to host a fraudulent email address in aid of a phishing scam then it cannot be considered legitimate. The Complainant submits that it learned on July 8, 2020 that an email address featuring the ending “@technlsem.com” was used in a scam email in which the sender, pretending to be an employee of the Complainant, instructed one of the Complainant’s customers to make a financial transfer to a Polish account not belonging to the Complainant. Luckily says the Complainant, its customer picked up on the scam and reported it to the Complainant. This says the Complainant is evidence of bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b) (iii) of the Policy. Further, it submits that the use by the Respondent in the emails of the name of the Complainant’s accountant and of the Complainant’s trade mark, shows that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its business rights and targeted its business. The fact that the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website is further evidence, according to the Complainant, that the sole purpose of the registration of the disputed domain name was to serve as a tool in an email scam. The Complainant notes that its TECHNISEM mark is distinctive and the Respondent obviously chose the disputed domain name with a slight variation for the purpose of typosquatting and of the domain name email scam as described above. Finally, it notes that the Respondent is currently the holder of more than 1,000 domain names and suggests that a large part of these involve examples of typosquatting of well-known marks. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns French trade mark registration number 3696807 for TECHNISEM registered on December 7, 2009. The disputed domain name only differs from this mark by the replacement of the letter “i” for the letter “l”. This appears to be a misspelling of the Complainant’s distinctive mark and visually the two marks look very similar and begin and end with the same syllable groups. As a result the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trade mark and the Complaint succeeds under this element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has submitted that the Respondent does not own rights in any trade marks equivalent to the disputed domain name and neither has the Respondent obtained the Complainant’s authorization to use the Complainant’s trade mark in the disputed domain name. It says that the Complainant’s mark is distinctive and that the Respondent’s use of with the “i” replaced by an “l” amounts to a case of typosquatting. The Complainant submits that this is illegitimate and is not consistent with the Respondent having rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant submitted that it learned on July 8, 2020 that an email address featuring the ending “@technlsem.com” was used in a scam email in which the sender, pretending to be an employee of the Complainant, had instructed one of the Complainant’s customers to make a financial transfer to a Polish account not belonging to the Complainant. The Complainant noted that its customer picked up on the scam and reported it to the Complainant before suffering any loss and has submitted the relevant email correspondence in evidence. This says the Complainant amounts to the disputed domain name being used to host a fraudulent email address in aid of a phishing scam, which cannot be a legitimate use of the disputed domain name. The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submission that the use of a fraudulent email address in aid of a phishing scam cannot amount to bona fide or legitimate activity for the purposes of this element of the Policy. 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, which case has not been rebutted by the Respondent. Accordingly, for this reason and as set out under Part C below, the Panel finds that the Complaint succeeds under this element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The disputed domain name was registered on July 8, 2020, many years after the Complainant started using its TECHNISEM mark or registered it as a French trade mark. The Complainant’s mark appears to be a coined term which is quite distinctive and has no apparent meaning in the English language in the United States where the Respondent is based. In these circumstances it seems more likely than not that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s trade mark when it registered the disputed domain name and this inference is only reinforced by the Respondent’s use in its emails of the Complainant’s trade mark. The use of the disputed domain name to facilitate an email and phishing scam as described under Part B above, amounts to use in bad faith. It is apparent, based on the correspondence put in evidence by the Complainant, that email addresses based on the disputed domain name were used in a quite elaborate scam together with a letter on fake letterhead belonging to the Complainant requesting payments to a Polish bank account. The Panel finds this to be clear evidence of use by the Respondent of the disputed domain name in bad faith. Moreover, under paragraph 4(b) (ii) of the Policy there is evidence of registration and use in bad faith where a Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct. The Respondent appears to have registered the disputed domain name in order to falsely impersonate the Complainant in its email scam. Based on evidence provided by the Complainant from a Reverse Whois Lookup search it appears that the Respondent also owns numerous domain names based on well-reputed marks or the misspelling of such marks. As a result, the Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy are also made out in this case. Accordingly, the Respondent has both registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith and the Complaint succeeds under this element 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 Alistair Payne
Sole Panelist
Date: October 8, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy