The Complainant is Screening Eagle Technologies AG, Switzerland, represented by Hepp Wenger Ryffel AG, Switzerland.
The Respondent is winbazltd winbaz, 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 November 30, 2020. On November 30, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 1, 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 information for the disputed domain name. 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 December 3, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 23, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 28, 2020. The Center appointed Martin Michaus Romero as the sole panelist in this matter on January 4, 2021. 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 1) The Complainant is a Swiss technology company located in Schwerzenbach, Switzerland, focusing on sustainable assets and infrastructure. The Complainant is the owner of the trademark SCREENING EAGLE in various countries and regions mainly protected for goods and services in classes 09, 37, 38, and 42. In particular is the owner of the following registrations: (a) International Registration No. 1385881 SCREENING EAGLE, registered on August 11, 2017. (b) Swiss Trademark Registration No. 705938 “SCREENING EAGLE”. Application date is February 24, 2017. (c) Hong Kong Registration No. 304171383 “SCREENING EAGLE”. Priority date of the Registration is June 13, 2017. The Complainant is using its trademark inter alia for apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound and images, sensors and software in the field of infrastructure inspection and management as well as for the automotive and metal industry. Furthermore, the Complainant is using its trademark for related services such as telecommunication services and scientific and technological services. 3) The Complainant is the owner of the domain name 4) The disputed domain name was registered on November 23, 2020. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states in its Complaint that the Respondent: 1) registered the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark “SCREENING EAGLE” without the Complainant’s knowledge or authorization; 2) registered the disputed domain name, which included the “SCREENING EAGLE” trademark, to create confusion in Internet consumers that the disputed domain name is affiliated with the Complainant; 3) has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and 4) likely intended to confuse the Complainant’s customers or potential customers, considering the complete reproduction of the SCREENING EAGLE trademark, but replacing the second “e” of the trademark with a letter “a” in the disputed domain name (i.e., typosquatting). Accordingly, the disputed domain name was selected, registered and used by the Respondent in bad faith and not for a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any fair use, but rather to mislead Internet users, disrupt the Complainant’s business, and affect the reputation of the SCREENING EAGLE trademark. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” In order to determine whether the Complainant has met its burden as stated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel bases its Decision on the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy and the Rules. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the 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 Complainant has submitted evidence of its rights in the SCREENING EAGLE trademark. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s “SCREENING EAGLE” trademark. The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark SCREENING EAGLE, but replacing the second letter “e” by a letter “a”. The trademark is included in the disputed domain name, and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), ”.com”, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the SCREENING EAGLE” trademark. The Panel finds that the Complainant satisfies paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent has not received permission or authorization to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent did not substantively reply to the Complainant’s contentions, and therefore has not provided any evidence to demonstrate anything to the contrary. It should be pointed out that nothing in the available record indicates that the Respondent is an individual, business, or corporation known by the name SCREENING EAGLE. Furthermore, the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for a legitimate or noncommercial fair use that might give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or owned a trademark or is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint or to take any steps to counter the prima facie case established by the Complainant. The disputed domain name redirects Internet users to a pornographic website, and such situation does not qualify as a legitimate right or interest under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant satisfies paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, it is clear to the Panel that the registration and the use of the disputed domain name has been in bad faith, by including the SCREENING EAGLE trademark, to intentionally attract Internet users for commercial gain. The inclusion of the gTLD “.com” in the disputed domain name attempts to deceive or lead Internet users to believe that the disputed domain name is operated by the Complainant, as it is a typo which is almost identical to the Complainant’s domain name The Respondent has demonstrated, by registering the disputed domain name an intent to capitalize on the goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark. Furthermore, the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website or other online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s SCREENING EAGLE trademark. These activities constitute, in view of the Panel, clear evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainants SCREENING EAGLE trademark registrations predate the registration date of the disputed domain name and the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainants trademark rights, considering the notoriety and worldwide reputation of the mark. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainants rights in said trademark. Considering the statements and the evidence provided by the Complainant, namely, that the Respondent used an email address associated with the disputed domain name to send a phishing email for the purpose of a dishonest activity, namely, to redirect payment of one of the Complainant’s wholly own subsidiaries’ customers to another bank account. For these purposes, such person acted as the Complainant’s accountant and routed an email to the Complainant’s customer, using the email address associated with the disputed domain name. The phishing scheme uses the disputed domain name as its route to create the impression that the email was sent by the Complainant to its customers in order to fraudulently induce customers to proceed with the payment. Several UDRP panels have found phishing activities as abusive registration. See CareerBuilder, LLC v. Stephen Backer,WIPO Case No. D2005-0251; The Boots Company, PLC. v. The Programmer Adviser,WIPO Case No. D2009-1383 and Société Francaise Du Radiotelephone – SFR v. Morel David,WIPO Case No. D2009-1563, as in this case, the Panel finds that the use of a email address associated with the disputed domain name, to send a phishing email for the purposes of dishonest activity is in itself evidence that the disputed domain name was registered and is been use in bad faith. The Respondent seeks to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation and/or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. This also negatively affects the Complainant’s online presence and disrupts the Complainant’s business. See paragraphs 4(b)(iv) and 4(b)(iii) of the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant satisfies paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 Martin Michaus Romero
Sole Panelist
Date: January 14, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy