The Complainant is Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A., Switzerland, represented by Aera A/S, Denmark.
The Respondent is Cassandra Lathers, Sitel Group, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 5, 2021. On May 5, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 26, 2021, 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 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 June 2, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 22, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 30, 2021. The Center appointed Mario Soerensen Garcia as the sole panelist in this matter on July 19, 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 is Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A., a Swiss company which is part of the Tetra Laval Group. The Tetra Laval Group consists of three independent different groups: Tetra Pak, DeLaval, and Sidel Group. Tetra Pak is a multinational food processing and packaging company founded in 1947 in Sweden. It employs more than 25,000 people in more than 160 countries, including the United States. The Complainant owns several trademarks in multiple jurisdictions with more than 1,500 registrations, including the Swedish Trademark Registration no. 71196 for TETRA PAK, registered in 1951 and the United States Trademark registrations nos. 586,480 and 580,219 for TETRA PAK, registered in 1954 and 1953, respectively. The Complainant also owns more than 300 domain names consisting of the mark TETRA PAK, covering both generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”) and country code Top-Level Domains (“ccTLDs”), including the domain name The disputed domain name was registered on April 22, 2021, and is inactive. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant initially argues that the fame of TETRA PAK trademark has been confirmed in several previous UDRP cases and that the reputation associated with the Complainant’s mark is excellent due to the quality of the Complainant’s goods and services. According to the Complainant, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on April 22, 2021, and it is a deliberate misspelling of the Complainant’s well-known trademark and trade name TETRA PAK, followed by the hyphen and the letters “ch”, in addition to the gTLD “.com”. The Complainant says that the change of the letter “p” by the letter “q” does not provide sufficient distinction from the Complainant’s mark, and is hardly noticeable and clearly deliberate, representing a classic typosquatting case with the intention to confuse email recipients. The Complainant adds that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to impersonate an officer of the Complainant in connection with email phishing, requesting the execution of an "urgent payment”. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way nor licensed or authorized to use TETRA PAK in connection with a website, email communication or for any other purpose. In addition, the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name and has not acquired any trademark rights in that name. In addition, the Complainant says that the Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services and/or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Instead, the disputed domain name is used in a phishing attack, and concludes that Internet users would most probably assume a connection with or endorsement from the Complainant and its business on the website that the disputed domain name resolves to or the email configured on the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, it is apparent from the composition of the disputed domain name that the Respondent should have known the Complainant’s trademarks, it is the reason why the disputed domain name was registered with a deliberate intent to create an impression of an association with the Complainant, and the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith. Finally, the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings As per paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that: (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 evidence presented in the Complaint demonstrates that the Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for TETRA PAK around the world, as well as several different domain names comprising TETRA PAK. There is no doubt that the disputed domain name is indeed a misspelling of the Complainant’s well-known mark TETRA PAK with the change of the letter “p” by the letter “q”, in addition to the hyphen and the letters “ch”. Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale,WIPO Case No. D2000-0662). The addition of the geographic abbreviation “ch”, used to denote Switzerland (and indeed similar to one of the Complainant’s own domain names), does not avoid confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. In this regard, it is the general view among UDRP panels that the addition of merely dictionary, descriptive or geographical terms to a trademark in a domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP (see section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)). Therefore, the Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been proved by the Complainant, i.e., the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, shifting the burden of production onto the Respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests, with the burden of proof remaining on the Complainant. The Respondent has not submitted a response to the Complaint to rebut this prima facie case. In addition, the Panel notes the following: - There is no evidence that the Respondent has any authorization to use the Complainant’s trademark or to register domain names containing the trademark TETRA PAK. - There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. - There is also no evidence that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name or that before any notice of the dispute the Respondent has made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, the Complainant showed evidence that the disputed domain name was used in a phishing attack urging the execution of an “urgent payment”. The Panel agrees with prior UDRP panels and finds that the use of the disputed domain name for illegal activity (i.e., impersonation/passing off, fraud) cannot confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent. See section 2.13 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied, i.e., the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The trademark TETRA PAK is registered by the Complainant in several jurisdictions and has been used since a long time. The earliest such mark predates the disputed domain name by almost 70 years. Also, the Complainant registered many different domain names consisting of the mark TETRA PAK. It is clear for this Panel that the disputed domain name reproduces the famous TETRA PAK mark with the intentional substitution of the letter “p” by the letter “q”, to confuse and/or deceive Internet users. Further, the Panel notes that the addition of the abbreviation “ch” likely refers to the Complainant’s country of origin, Switzerland, and also notes the Complainant use of the domain name The Complainant’s TETRA PAK mark is distinctive, widely known, and has a very strong worldwide visibility. Thus, a domain name that reproduces such a well-known mark is suggestive of the registrant’s bad faith. It is not conceivable that the Respondent would not have been aware of the Complainant's trademark rights at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s intention was certainly to create a likelihood of confusion among Internet users for any commercial gain, which is confirmed by the evidence presented in the Complaint, since the Respondent sent emails impersonating the Complainant in an attempt to receive payment. Moreover, the Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complainant’s allegations. According to the panel’s decision in The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, WIPO Case No. D2009-0610, “the failure of the Respondent to respond to the Complaint further supports an inference of bad faith”. Therefore, this Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to cause confusion with the Complainant’s trademark by misleading Internet users to believe that its website belongs to or is associated with the Complainant. This Panel finds that the Respondent’s attempt of taking undue advantage of the trademark TETRA PAK as described in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy has been demonstrated. For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied, i.e., the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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, Mario Soerensen Garcia
Sole Panelist
Date: July 29, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy