The Complainants are J S Bloor (Services) Limited and Bloor Homes Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Gowling WLG (UK) LLP, United Kingdom (individually and collectively referred to as the “Complainant”).
The Respondent is Pouya Ta, Canada. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 14, 2021. On June 15, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 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 June 17, 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 June 22, 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 June 29, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 19, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 2, 2021. The Center appointed Carol Anne Been as the sole panelist in this matter on August 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 alleges that it and its affiliates are one of the United Kingdom’s largest and most well-known home builders, trading under the name BLOOR HOMES since 1969. The Complainant alleges that it also actively markets its services internationally. Furthermore, the Complainant owns trademark registrations for the mark BLOOR HOMES in the United Kingdom since 1998. The Complainant owns the domain name The disputed domain name was registered on January 4, 2021. The website at the disputed domain name promotes home building services under the name “Bloor Homes”, using an “s” with the word “home” on the website although no “s” is used with the word “home” in the disputed domain name. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it owns the BLOOR HOMES mark which has a substantial reputation in the United Kingdom. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its BLOOR HOMES mark with the only difference being the removal of the letter “s” from the word “homes” in the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends the average consumer would not notice this difference. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the BLOOR HOMES mark and is not commonly known by BLOOR HOMES, and that BLOOR is not a common word in English or any language. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no relationship with the Complainant and no license or other permission to use the mark or register any domain name incorporating the BLOOR HOMES mark. The Complainant contends that there is no evidence the Respondent is using the disputed domain name with a bona fide offering of services or is making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain. The Complainant contends that the BLOOR HOMES mark is well-known in the United Kingdom, and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark. The Complainant contends that the Respondent must have known of the Complainant’s rights since the mark is so well-known in the United Kingdom and “bloor” is not a common word in English or any language. The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intent of transferring the registration to the Complainant or its competitor, for valuable consideration in excess of costs. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent is unfairly benefitting from the goodwill and reputation in the Complainant’s mark and business, indicating registration in bad faith. The Complainant also makes allegations that the telephone number associated with the disputed domain name is out of service, and that the email address associated with the disputed domain name does not exist. However, the telephone number and email address referenced by the Complainant are not those associated with the disputed domain name or the Respondent that appear in the record of this proceeding. Therefore, the Panel does not consider these allegations. B. Respondent The Panel notes that despite the use not only of a “contact us” form at the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, but also of the email address at the disputed domain name, and that provided by the Registrar, for Notification of the Complaint, the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant owns trademark rights in the BLOOR HOMES mark in the United Kingdom since 1998. (The Complainant’s registered rights in its mark, which is of particular relevance to the second and third elements, predate registration of the disputed domain name.) The disputed domain name uses the entire mark of the Complainant, differing only by removal of the letter “s” from the word ”homes” as used in the Complainant’s mark. Omission of the letter “s” does not diminish the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s mark. See, e.g., VUR Village Trading No. 1 Limited v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) / Syvester Abdulahi.WIPO Case No. D2021-1888 (“Complainant’s word trademark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. The omission of the last letter “s” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity”). The presence of the top level domain, “.com”, does not reduce the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s mark, and may be disregarded in determining whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), Section 1.11. The Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has no relationship with the Respondent and has not granted the Respondent a license or other permission to use the mark or register any domain name incorporating the BLOOR HOMES mark. The Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by “bloor homes” or “bloor home”, and “bloor” is not a common word in English. The Respondent does not appear to have any rights or legitimate interests in the BLOOR HOMES mark and there is no evidence in the record that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name with a bona fide offering of services or is making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain. The Respondent had the opportunity to explain any claim to legitimate use of the disputed domain name, but did not respond to the Complaint. Therefore, the Complainant has put forward a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which the Respondent has not rebutted. See WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 4.3. The Panel finds the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant began using its BLOOR HOMES mark more than 50 years before the disputed domain name was registered. The Complainant registered its BLOOR HOMES mark as a trademark in the United Kingdom more than 20 years before the disputed domain name was registered. The Complainant alleges that it actively markets its services internationally and has made multiple sales outside the United Kingdom, while the Respondent is allegedly located in Canada. Yet the website at the disputed domain name gives the names of cities in the United Kingdom, Ireland and Australia as locations for some of its projects. While the website content is not clear, it could give the impression that the Respondent may offer services in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, overlapping with the Complainant’s services. The inference from the case file, in the absence of a response, suggests awareness of the Complainant. The Respondent has registered and uses the unusual term “bloor” together with the word “home” in the disputed domain name. The website copy at the disputed domain name promotes residential building services similar to those of the Complainant. The logo and copy on the website use the name “Bloor Homes” (with an “s”) which exactly corresponds to the Complainant’s mark, while the disputed domain name is in the singular – this is noteworthy especially as the Complainant’s own domain name (and mark) uses the plural. These facts, taken together, seem too close to the Complainant’s rights to be a mere coincidence. The Respondent had the opportunity to respond to the Complaint, but failed to do so. The Respondent’s failure to rebut the case asserted by the Complainant indicates the lack of any other plausible explanation. In the absence of a response, the Panel concludes the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark and business when registering and using the disputed domain name. The Panel finds the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name 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, Carol Anne Been
Sole Panelist
Date: August 30, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy