Complainant is CMA CGM, France, represented by Inlex IP Expertise, France.
Respondent is WhoisSecure, United States of America, / Lijoka Ayodele, Nigeria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 7, 2020. On December 7, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 8, 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 Complainant on December 8, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on December 8, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 10, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 30, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on January 4, 2021. The Center appointed Lorelei Ritchie as the sole panelist in this matter on January 11, 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 Complainant is a multinational company that provides shipping and transport services globally. Complainant serves customers in over 160 countries, with over 110,000 employees worldwide. In connection with these services, Complainant uses the mark CMA CGM, and several variations thereof. Complainant owns numerous registrations for its marks globally including, among others, International Registration No. 1191384 (registered October 2, 2013) for CMA CGM. Complainant owns the registration for a number of domain names that incorporate variations on its CMA CGM mark. These include The disputed domain name Complainant contends that the (i) disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. In particular, Complainant contends that it has a “well-known” name and mark and a strong reputation in the field of global shipping and transport services. Complainant contends that it has trademark registrations for its CMA CMG mark, including for variations with designs, as well as domain name registrations for variations on these marks. Complainant contends that Respondent has merely added the letter “s” to its registered mark, which is likely to confuse prospective online consumers into thinking that the disputed domain name is affiliated with or endorsed by Complainant. Complainant further contends that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to set up a website meant to lure in customers looking for Complainant and its global shipping and transport services, likely in a “phishing” scheme. Complainant further contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name registration or use of the disputed domain name. Rather, Complainant contends that Respondent has acted in bad faith in setting up a website, when Respondent clearly knew of Complainant’s rights. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar This Panel must first determine whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. The Panel finds that it is. The disputed domain name directly incorporates Complainant’s registered trademark CMA CGM, with only the addition of the letter “s”, which is likely not to be noticed by online consumers searching for Complainant’s CMA CGM products and services. Merely adding the letter “s” to a registered trademark has been found by UDRP panelists to be a common, and illicit, form of typosquatting that does not make a domain name any less “identical or confusingly similar” for purposes of satisfying this first prong of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, for example, ESH Strategies Branding, LLC v. Kumpol Sawaengkarn, WIPO Case No. D2011-0843; Crown Trophy, Inc. v. PrivacyProtect.org / Pluto Domain Services Private Limited, WIPO Case No. D2009-0061; Halcyon Yarn, Inc. v. Henry Chan,WIPO Case No. D2004-0336. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Policy provides some guidance to respondents on how to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue in a UDRP dispute. For example, paragraph 4(c) of the Policy gives examples that might show rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. These examples include: (i) use of the domain name “in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services”; (ii) demonstration that Respondent has been “commonly known by the domain name”; or (iii) “legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue”. Respondent did not submit a reply to the Complaint; however, as mentioned in Section 4 of this Panel’s decision, Respondent has used the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to a website that appears to mimic Complaint’s website but which is unaffiliated with Complainant or Complainant’s products and services. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie showing of Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, which Respondent has not rebutted. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has provided sufficient evidence of Respondent’s lack of “rights or legitimate interests” in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, which Respondent has not rebutted. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith There are several ways that a complainant can demonstrate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith. For example, paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy states that bad faith can be shown where “by using the domain name [respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the] website or location”. As noted in Section 4 of this Panel’s decision, Respondent has set up a URL associated with the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that appears to mimic an official website of Complainant, and which attempts to confuse consumers by displaying marks owned and registered by Complainant. Respondent is thus trading on the goodwill of Complainant’s trademarks to attract Internet users, presumably for Respondent’s own commercial gain. Furthermore, the nature of the disputed domain name, comprising a typo of Complainant’s widely-known trademark, supports a finding of bad faith. The Panel finds that, for purposes of the UDRP, Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision For all 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 Lorelei Ritchie
Sole Panelist
Dated: January 18, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy