Complainant is Ram Alloys, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Patterson + Sheridan, LLP, United States.
Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States / Kayleigh Anniballi, 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 July 9, 2021. On July 12, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On July 13, 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 Complainant on July 16, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on July 16, 2021. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 26, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 15, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on August 17, 2021. The Center appointed Colin T. O’Brien as the sole panelist in this matter on August 25, 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 operates a business based in the United States through a website and email domain at The Disputed Domain Name was registered on June 1, 2021. It does not resolve to active website but it is being used to send fraudulent emails. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Disputed Domain Name Complainant has used the RAM ALLOYS mark in the United States since at least 2014 and its first trademark registration predates the registration of the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent uses Disputed Domain Name to spoof and fraud Complainant’s customers and clients. An email exchange between Respondent and a customer of Complainant, M&R Manufacturing LLC, evidences a request from Respondent’s email “@ramall0ys.com” for payment by wire transfer. Respondent has no connection or affiliation with Complainant and has not received any license or consent, whether express or implied, to use the RAM ALLOYS mark in a domain name or in any other manner. Complainant does not sponsor or endorse Respondent’s usage of the RAM ALLOYS mark in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent impersonates Complainant’s employee, duplicating her username using Respondent’s domain name/ By using the Disputed Domain Name solely to fraudulently collect payment of Complainant’s services from their clients and customers, Respondent is trying to profit from its unauthorized use thereof and creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademarks. Respondent uses Disputed Domain Name to fraudulently collect payment of Complainant’s services from their clients and customers. There are no legitimate reasons to operate an email domain which infringes Complainant’s trademark, to disrupt the business of Complainant. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant has demonstrated it owns registered trademark rights in the RAM ALLOYS mark. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates a misspelling of the RAM ALLOYS mark, namely the substitute of “O” with “0” which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the mark and the Disputed Domain Name. See sections 1.8 and 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has presented a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and has not at any time been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. The fact that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name, which is a misspelling of Complainant’s RAM ALLOYS mark indicates that Respondent sought to use the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant has also presented prima facie evidence that shows Respondent has attempted to illegitimately deceive Complainant’s customers in an attempt to receive their account information. After a complainant has made a prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to present evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See, e.g., Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455. Here, Respondent has provided no evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name; rather, the evidence suggests that the Disputed Domain Name was registered by Respondent to make an undue profit based on Complainant’s rights. See, e.g., Bottega Veneta SA v. ZhaoJiafei,WIPO Case No. D2013-1556. In the absence of any evidence rebutting Complainant’s prima facie case indicating Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Disputed Domain Name was registered many years after Complainant first registered and used its RAM ALLOYS mark. Considering the evidence on the record provided by Complainant with respect to the extent of use of its RAM ALLOYS mark, the typosquatting of Complainant’s mark in the Disputed Domain Name, combined with the absence of any evidence provided by Respondent to the contrary, is sufficient to satisfy the Panel that, at the time the Disputed Domain Name was registered, Respondent undoubtedly knew of Complainant’s RAM ALLOYS mark, and knew that it had no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. There is no benign reason for Respondent to have registered the Disputed Domain Name. Further, the use by Respondent is clearly in bad faith. Complainant has established that Respondent used the Disputed Domain Name in a scheme to steal funds from Complainant’s customers through the sending of false email invoices. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Complainant has satisfied 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 Colin T. O’Brien
Sole Panelist
Date: September 7, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy