The Complainant is Croda International PLC, United Kingdom (the “UK”), represented by Appleyard Lees IP, UK.
The Respondent is Domain Administrator, PrivacyGuardian.org, United States of America / Tropicalheightsafricalimited, Tropica Heightsafrica, Uganda. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 16, 2021. On February 16, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 16, 2021, 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 February 18, 2021, 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 February 23, 2021. 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 February 25, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 17, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 19, 2021. The Center appointed Taras Kyslyy as the sole panelist in this matter on March 30, 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 creates, manufactures and sells various chemicals in three market sectors: personal care, life sciences, and performance technologies. It operates its website at “www.croda.com”, and is a registered company in the UK under the name Croda International PLC. The Complainant owns numerous registrations of CRODA trademark, including, for instance, UK trademark registration No. 000894741, registered on February 21, 2000. The disputed domain name was registered on September 3, 2020 and resolved to a copy of the Complainant’s website. The disputed domain name was also used for a fraudulent email scheme. At the time of the Decision, the disputed domain name resolves to an email service. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant owns registered and common law trademark rights in the CRODA sign. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” will go unnoticed by visitors to the disputed domain name. The elements of “international” and “plc” are not distinctive and are purely descriptive of the Complainant’s type of trading entity, as illustrated by the Complainant’s company name. The single distinctive and therefore dominant element of the disputed domain name is “croda” which is identical to the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was registered in September 2020, whereas the Complainant’s trademark dates back to 1968 at the earliest. The disputed domain name does not correspond to the name of the Respondent and it has not been used in connection with a business operating in good faith or a genuine offering of goods or services. The Respondent has no rightful connection with the term CRODA or any legitimate reason to use that mark or incorporate it in a registered domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that is a copy of the Complainant’s legitimate website at “www.croda.com”. If a visitor of the disputed domain name attempts to explore the content of the website by navigating through the tabs and selecting sub-pages, the link only reverts back to the homepage and does not allow for the provision of any goods or services. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name strongly implies a connection between the Complainant and the Respondent which does not exist and has been created purposefully by the Respondent to deceive visitors to the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was registered in order to disrupt the business of the Complainant, and the Respondent has intentionally created a likelihood of confusion between the Complainant’s legitimate domain and the disputed domain name. The Respondent is using the disputed domain in bad faith since the disputed domain name is clearly derived from the Complainant’s company name, domain name and registered trademark; the disputed domain name resolves to a website with cloned content taken from the Complainant’s website; and the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to fraudulently send emails and misrepresent itself as the Complainant. The fact that the Respondent has used a privacy service to conceal its true identify further supports this finding. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar According to section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (the “WIPO Overview 3.0”) the applicable gTLD in a domain name (e.g., “.com”, “.club”, “.nyc”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. Thus, the Panel disregards the gTLD “.com” in the disputed domain name for the purposes of the confusing similarity test. According to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 , in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, the domain name will normally be considered identical or confusingly similar to that mark for the purposes of UDRP standing. The Panel finds that in the present case the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety. According to section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. The Panel finds that in the present case the descriptive terms “international” and “plc” do not prevent finding the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. According to section 1.15 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 , the content of the website associated with the domain name is usually disregarded by panels when assessing confusing similarity under the first element. In some instances, panels have however taken note of the content of the website associated with a domain name to confirm confusing similarity whereby it appears prima facie that the respondent seeks to target a trademark through the disputed domain name. In the present case and as further discussed in the below paragraphs, the Panel finds that the content of the website associated with the disputed domain name copying the Complainant’s respective website allows to conclude in favor of the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. Considering the above the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has established prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent provided no evidence that it holds a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, which could potentially demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests (see, e.g., World Natural Bodybuilding Federation, Inc. v. Daniel Jones TheDotCafe,WIPO Case No. D2008-0642). The Complainant did not license or otherwise agree for use of its prior registered trademarks by the Respondent, thus no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name could be reasonably claimed (see, e.g., Sportswear Company S.P.A. v. Tang Hong,WIPO Case No. D2014-1875). The disputed domain name used to resolve to a website with a logo identical to the Complainant’s and designed identically to the Complainant’s website to likely make the Internet users believe that they actually access the Complainant’s website. Past UDRP panels confirmed that such actions prove a registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name (see Daniel C. Marino, Jr. v. Video Images Productions, et al.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0598, Houghton Mifflin Co. v. Weatherman, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0211). The Respondent has intentionally and fraudulently attempted to pass itself off as the Complainant by using an email address associated with the disputed domain name. Past UDRP panels confirmed that such actions prove registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name (see Allianz SE v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Allianz Survey,WIPO Case No. D2016-1658). Considering the above, the Panel finds the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith According to section 3.2.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 , further factors including the nature of the domain name, the chosen Top-Level Domain, any use of the domain name, or any respondent pattern, may obviate a respondent’s claim not to have been aware of the complainant’s mark. In the present case the Respondent shortly after registration of the disputed domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark placed a website being merely copy of the respective Complainant’s website. The Panel finds that the nature of the disputed domain name and its use confirms the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s prior trademark rights, which confirms registration of the disputed domain name in bad faith. According to section 3.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 , bad faith under the UDRP is broadly understood to occur where a respondent takes unfair advantage of or otherwise abuses a complainant’s mark. To facilitate assessment of whether this has occurred, and bearing in mind that the burden of proof rests with the complainant, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that any one of the following non-exclusive scenarios constitutes evidence of a respondent’s bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location. In this regard, the Panel finds that at least the third and the fourth of the above scenarios apply to the present case confirming the Respondent’s bad faith. Although at the time of this Decision the disputed domain name resolves to an email service webpage, its previous bad faith use and lack of explanation of possible good faith use from the Respondent makes any good faith use of the disputed domain name implausible. Moreover, the Respondent used a privacy service to register the disputed domain name. According to section 3.6 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 , the use of a privacy or proxy service merely to avoid being notified of a UDRP proceeding, may support an inference of bad faith; a respondent filing a response may refute such inference. However, no such response was provided by the Respondent. The Panel finds that such use of the privacy service here confirms registration of the disputed domain name in bad faith. Considering the above, the Panel finds the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the Complainant has established its case under 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, Taras Kyslyy
Sole Panelist
Date: April 7, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy