The Complainant is Unilever PLC, United Kingdom, represented by Stobbs IP Limited, United Kingdom (“UK”).
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy LLC, United States of America / David Noble, UK. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 9, 2020. On October 9, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed Domain Name. On October 9, 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 October 16, 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 October 21, 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 October 30, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 19, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 25, 2020. The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on December 8, 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 the owner of the mark UNILEVER, registered, inter alia, in the UK registration no. 879310 since 1965. It owns the domain name The Domain Name registered in 2020 has been used for a website associated with an email and SMS phishing scam. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant is the owner of the mark UNILEVER, registered, inter alia, in the UK registration no. 879310 since 1965. It owns the domain name The Domain Name registered in 2020 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark adding only the generic term “2020” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” which does not prevent this confusing similarity. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant. The Domain Name has been used in relation to a website associated with an email and SMS phishing scam impersonating the Complainant’s officers/employees and using the Complainant’s mark, logo and address. This cannot be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. It is registration and use in bad faith. The Domain Name in this Complaint appears to be operated by someone who has previously been the subject of an adverse ruling under the UDRP for registering domain names including the Complainant’s mark and using them for very similar scams. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s UNILEVER trade mark (registered in, inter alia, the UK for household products in class 3 since1965), the numbers “2020”, and the gTLD “.com”. Adding the numbers “2020” to the Complainant’s registered mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark which is still clearly recognisable in the Domain Name. The gTLD “.com” is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose of the Policy to a mark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. The Domain Name has been used for a site associated with attempted fraudulent scams using the Complainant’s mark and logo, the names of officers/employees of the Complainant and the address of the Complainant’s UK and Ireland head office and corporate subsidiary Unilever UK Limited. This is designed to be deceptive and confusing and pass off the Respondent as the Complainant. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. As such the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Impersonating a complainant by use of the complainant’s mark in an attempted fraudulent scam is disruptive and evinces bad faith registration and use. In the opinion of the Panel the use made of the Domain Name in relation to fraudulent scam attempts is confusing in that recipients of any such communications relating to a website at the Domain Name would reasonably believe they are dealing with the Complainant as the Complainant’s trade mark, logo, the name of officers/employees and address of the Complainant have been used. This mimicking by the Respondent of the Complainant shows that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its business and rights. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of a website and the services or products offered on it. Further, the Panel notes that the owner of the Domain Name appears to have been involved in a previous UDRP case where the domain names in that case contained the Complainant’s mark and were transferred due to bad faith involving very similar scams showing a pattern of nefarious activity. As such, the Panel believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and 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 Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: December 17, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy