The Complainant is Impact Crowd Technology S.L., Spain, represented by Otmore Limited, Malta.
The Respondent is WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / John Cannex, Seal Ltd, United States of America. 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 14, 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 26, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. 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 November 19, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 9, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 17, 2020. The Center appointed Alistair Payne as the sole panelist in this matter on December 24, 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 based in Spain operates an on-line networking and marketing company through a website at its domain name The disputed domain name was registered on August 30, 2020, and resolves to a website which, in particular, features the Complainant’s “CROWD 1” logo. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant submits that it owns registered trade mark rights for its CROWD1 trademark as noted above. It notes that the substantive element of the disputed domain name before the “capital” Top-Level Domain name element is identical to its “Crowd1” word mark. The Complainant submits that it is unaware of the Respondent having any trade mark rights or company name registrations for the term “Crowd1” and it has not found any evidence of the Respondent being commonly known by the “Crowd1” name. The Complainant says further that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a noncommercial or fair use but is rather using it for its own commercial purposes and to mislead Internet users seeking the Complainant’s products and services. The Complainant notes that the Respondent has no known affiliation with the Complainant but that the Respondent has without authority used the Complainant’s trade mark and sought to sell its products from a website that masquerades as being owned by or having an affiliation with the Complainant. It notes that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves copies the Complainant’s “Crowd1” logo. As far as bad faith is concerned, the Complainant says that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to attempt to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade marks. It says that the website that is active at the disputed domain name is clearly using the Complainant’s registered trade mark and the Complainant’s logotype. When comparing the website at the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s website at “www.crowd1.com” the Complainant submits that it is evident that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and is trying to mimic the Complainant’s brand and website with intent for commercial gain and/or to mislead Internet users seeking the Complainant’s services. 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 European Union trade mark registration number 018196269 for CROWD1 with application date of February 14, 2020 and registered on June 6, 2020. The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the CROWD1 mark and other than the “.capital” Top Level Domain element is identical to the Complainant’s trade mark. As a result, the Panel finds that the Complaint succeeds under the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has submitted that it is unaware of the Respondent having any trade mark rights or company name registrations for the term “Crowd1” and it has not found any evidence of the Respondent being commonly known by the “Crowd1” name. The Complainant has further submitted that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a noncommercial or fair use but is rather using it for its own commercial purposes and to mislead Internet users seeking the Complainant’s products and services. The Complainant has confirmed that the Respondent has no known affiliation with the it but that, without authority, the Respondent has used the Complainant’s trade mark and sought to sell its products from a website that masquerades as being owned by or having an affiliation with the Complainant. In this regard, it certainly appears to the Panel that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves has a very similar “look” to the Complainant’s website and that it copies the Complainant’s “Crowd1” logo. The Complainant notes that the Respondent failed to respond to its cease and desist letter sent in advance of the commencement of these proceedings For these reasons and as set out below under Part C, 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. In circumstances that the Respondent has not rebutted the case made out by the Complainant, the Panel finds that the Complaint also succeeds under this element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The disputed domain name was registered some months after the filing and registration of the Complainant’s CROWD1 European Union trade mark. It is apparent that the Respondent has attempted to emulate various elements from the Complainant’s website on its own website at the disputed domain name in order to confuse Internet users into thinking that its business is the Complainant’s, or is affiliated with the Complainant’s business. The degree of similarity is too close to be coincidental. In particular, the Respondent’s website copies the Complainant’s CROWD1 trade mark and the distinctive logo style in which it is depicted, it includes similar overall colourings and a similar style and features a very similar representation of a smart phone. While the two websites are not identical, the similarities are striking and apparent and Internet users could easily be confused into thinking that it the website at the disputed domain name is the Complainant’s website, or has some association or affiliation with the Complainant, when this is not the case. In terms of the Policy, it appears to the Panel that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to its website in order to induce them into believing that the website is owned by the Complainant or is somehow affiliated to or endorsed by the Complainant in order to trade off the goodwill and reputation attaching to the Complainant’s business and trade mark and to profit commercially by driving traffic to the Respondent’s website. This conduct fulfills the requirements of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy which is evidence of both registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. In the circumstances, the Respondent’s use of a privacy service to mask its true identity is a further indicator of the Respondent’s bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been both registered and used 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: January 7, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy