Complainant is Cole-Parmer Instrument Company LLC, United States of America, represented by IPLA, LLP, United States of America.
Respondent is Bay Bruce, 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 April 5, 2021. On April 6, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 7, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming the registrant and contact information. 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 April 9, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 29, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 6, 2021. The Center appointed Lorelei Ritchie as the sole panelist in this matter on May 20, 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 global manufacturer and distributor of scientific and industrial instruments, based in the United States. Since 1955, Complainant has offered its products under the COLE-PARMER mark. Complainant owns several registrations for its COLE-PARMER mark. These include United States Registration Nos. 1344114 (registered June 25, 1985) and 1400994 (registered July 15, 1986). Complainant additionally interacts with consumers and prospective consumers via its online presence. In this regard, Complainant owns the registration for the domain name The disputed domain name, Complainant contends that (i) the disputed domain name, In particular, Complainant contends that it has established rights in its registered COLE-PARMER mark. Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name is an obvious and deliberate misspelling of the COLE-PARMER mark. Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and rather has registered and is using it in bad faith. In particular, Complainant contends that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to set up email accounts meant to confuse Complainant’s trading partners into providing Respondent their sensitive personal and financial information. Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the registration or use of the disputed domain name. Rather, Complainant contends that Respondent has acted in bad faith in sending out fraudulent emails, when Respondent was clearly aware of Complainant’s rights in the COLE-PARMER mark. B. Respondents Respondent did not file a reply to Complainants’ contentions in this proceeding. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel must first determine whether the disputed domain name The Panel finds that it is. The disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of Complainant’s established COLE-PARMER mark. This indicates a practice commonly known as “typosquatting”, where a domain name registrant deliberately registers common misspellings of a well-known mark in order to divert consumer traffic. Other UDRP panels have routinely found typosquatted domain names like this to be “confusingly similar” for purposes of a finding under the UDRP. See Edmonds.com, Inc. v. Yingkun Guo,WIPO Case No. D2006-0694 ( The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is 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. Rather, as mentioned in Section 4 of this Panel’s decision, Respondent has used an email account associated with the disputed domain name to engage in fraudulent behavior whereby Respondent has merely used the disputed domain name to set up email accounts in an apparent phishing scheme. 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 names, which Respondent has not rebutted. The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in accordance with paragraph (4)(a)(ii) of the Policy. 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] web site 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 [respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the] web site or location”. As noted in Section 4 of this Panel’s decision, although the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive web page, Respondent has used the disputed domain name to set up email accounts in a manner apparently calculated to confuse Complainant’s trading partners into providing Respondent their sensitive personal and financial information. Hence, Respondent is trading on the goodwill of Complainant’s trademarks to attract Internet users, presumably for Respondent’s own commercial gain. Given the nature of the use, and the disputed domain name, which incorporates a typosquatted version of Complainant’s registered COLE-PARMER mark, the Panel finds that despite the fact that the disputed domain name does not resolved to an active website, Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s prior rights, thereby evidencing bad faith. Overall, the Panel finds that Respondent has 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: May 25, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy