The Complainant is Amazic B.V., Netherlands, represented by Merkenbureau Knijff & Partners B.V., Netherlands.
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States of America (“United States”) / Hasan Colbert, 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 October 14, 2020. On October 14, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 15, 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 19, 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 27, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 16, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 27, 2020. The Center appointed Miguel B. O'Farrell 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, Amazic B.V., is a company based in the Netherlands that provides organizations and individuals with platform brands to discover, learn, purchase and market the latest IT technologies. It operates the website “www.amazic.com”. The Complainant owns several trademark registrations for the word mark AMAZIC in various countries, including the following: European Trademark Registration No. 013871132 AMAZIC, registered on of July 29, 2015; Benelux Trademark Registration No. 962503 AMAZIC registered on December 3, 2014 and applied for on September 19, 2014. The disputed domain name In summary, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark AMAZIC in which the Complainant has rights; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name which was registered and is being used in bad faith. More specifically, there has never been a business relation or an affiliation between the Complainant and the Respondent. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor is it making a legitimate commercial use of it. Neither has the Respondent been authorized by the Complainant to use the AMAZIC trademark. Furthermore, the Respondent sent e-mails from the address “[...]@amazicc.com” in order to mislead customers of the Complainant into paying invoices to the Respondent. Finally, the Complainant requests that the Panel order the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the disputed domain name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that: (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 The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has proven that it has rights in the AMAZIC trademark. As set forth in section 1.7 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) the standing test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the trademark and the disputed domain name to determine whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark. The test involves a side-by-side comparison of the disputed domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. The Panel considers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s AMAZIC trademark. The disputed domain name For the purposes of assessing identity or confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) as it is viewed as a standard registration requirement (section 1.11 of WIPO Overview 3.0 ). Thus, for the test for confusing similarity the Panel shall disregard the “.com” gTLD included in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the AMAZIC trademark in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy therefore are fulfilled. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may establish rights to or legitimate interests in a domain name by demonstrating any of the following: (i) before any notice to it of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) the respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or (iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain, to misleadingly divert consumers. Although the Policy addresses ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, it is well established, as it is put in section 2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0, that a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Once such prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations and evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the respondent does come forward with some allegations of evidence of relevant rights or legitimate interests, the panel weighs all the evidence, with the burden of proof always remaining on the complainant. The Complainant submits that it has never granted the Respondent with the right to use or register the trademark AMAZIC. As sustained by the Complainant, there is no evidence to show that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case, a case calling for an answer from the Respondent. The Respondent has not responded and the Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complaint also succeeds on the second prong. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark AMAZIC when it registered the disputed domain name As indicated in section 6. A. above, the Panel considers that the attitude of the Respondent in registering the disputed domain name involves a clear case of typosquatting which constitutes bad faith registration (as stated in section 3.2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0). The Complainant has submitted evidence that shows that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name as an email address from which to send an email to a customer of the Complainant in an attempt to have it pay an invoice for services which had not been rendered. The Panel considers that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intention to confuse Internet users and capitalize on the fame of the Complainant’s name and trademark for its own monetary benefit. The Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and uses the disputed domain intentionally to attempt to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s name and trademark AMAZIC as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. This amounts to bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) 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 Miguel B. O'Farrell
Sole Panelist
Date: December 22, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy