The Complainant is Autodesk, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Donahue Fitzgerald, United States.
The Respondent is asda casdq, Philippines. 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 12, 2020. On December 14, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 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 December 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 December 29, 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 January 11, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 31, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 8, 2021. The Center appointed George R. F. Souter as the sole panelist in this matter on February 16, 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 The Complainant has, since 1983, been producing software products under its AUTODESK trademark, and has over 9 million users on a worldwide basis. The Complainant has registered its AUTODESK trademark in over 70 countries. These registrations include United States Registration No. 1316772, registered on January 29, 1985. The Complainant has spent millions of USD advertising its trademark and products. For many years, the Complainant has produced and made available to the public an annual series of online webinars regarding its products, advertised under the title “Autodesk DevDays online”. The Complainant states that the phrase “DevDays” is shorthand for “Developer Days”. The disputed domain name was registered on February 6, 2020, and resolves to a pornographic website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its AUTODESK trademark, as it contains its AUTODESK trademark in its entirety, together with the phrase “devdays”, which is likely to be associated with the Complainant, reinforcing the confusion likely to arise through use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, in particular that the Complainant has never granted permission to the Respondent to use its AUTODESK trademark in connection with a domain name, or otherwise. The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, and is being used in connection with a pornographic website, which the Complainant regards as tarnishing Its AUTODESK trademark, and associated goodwill. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements that the Complainant must prove to merit a finding that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant: (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 has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel is satisfied from the information provided that the Complainant has sufficient rights in its AUTODESK trademark for the purposes of these proceedings. It is well-established in prior decisions under the UDRP, with which the Panel agrees, that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) is irrelevant when comparing a trademark with a disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel considers the gTLD “.com” to be irrelevant in the circumstances of the present case, and so finds. It has been well-established in prior decisions under the UDRP that a disputed domain name which wholly contains a complainant’s trademark together with the mere addition of descriptive or non-distinctive elements is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity between a trademark and a disputed domain name. The Complainant’s AUTODESK trademark is instantly recognizable in the disputed domain name, and the additional element “devdays” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Complainant’s AUTODESK trademark and the disputed domain name. In these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests It is the consensus view of UDRP panels, with which the Panel agrees, that a prima facie case advanced by the complainant will generally be sufficient for the complainant to be deemed to have satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, provided the respondent does not come forward with evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and the complainant has presented a sufficient prima facie case to succeed under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. The Panel considers the submissions put forward by the Complainant as sufficient to be regarded as a prima facie case, and the Respondent did not take the opportunity to advance any claim of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name to rebut this prima facie case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel is of the view that the finding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name can lead, in appropriate circumstances, to a finding of registration of a disputed domain name in bad faith. The circumstance of the present case, in which the Panel regards it as self-evident that the Complainant’s AUTODESK trademark, accompanied by a word/phrase likely to be associated with the Complainant, were deliberately appropriated in the disputed domain name, are such that the Panel concludes that a finding of registration in bad faith is justified, and so finds. The Panel regards the Complainant’s stated worry that the use of the disputed domain name in connection with a pornographic website will tarnish its AUTODESK trademark and associated goodwill as being justifiable, and, accordingly, considers that a finding of use in bad faith is appropriate under the Policy, and so finds. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of 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 George R. F. Souter
Sole Panelist
Date: March 2, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy