The Complainant is Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented internally.
The Respondent is Tulip Trading Company Limited, Saint Kitts and Nevis.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 9, 2021 in relation to the domain names
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 August 3, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 23, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 26, 2021.
The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on September 13, 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 BackgroundThe Sedgwick group of companies have supplied claims administration and related services since 1969. The group operates websites at “www.sedgwick.com” and “www.mysedgwick.com”.
Marsh USA, Inc., owns United States registered trade mark no. 2193182 for SEDGWICK, filed February 18, 1997, registered October 6, 1998, in class 36.
The disputed domain name was registered on September 7, 2018.
When viewed by the Panel1 on October 6, 2021, the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page with pay-per-click (“PPC”) links relating to claims-related services including one link referring to the Complainant itself: “Sedgwick Claims”.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe following is a summary of the Complainant’s contentions.
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, but simply to a page that provides claim services and invites users to download a browser extension which is unrelated to the Complainant and which includes malware.
The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Respondent is using the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s name, to disrupt the Complainant’s business and/or to tarnish the Complainant’s trade mark if the browser extensions are being used for a malicious purpose.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsUnder the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that:
- the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights;
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
- the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant has produced evidence of a United States trade mark for SEDGWICK owned by Marsh USA, Inc. So far as the Panel is aware, this company is a different entity to the Complainant, but is part of the same corporate group [via recorded merger]. . In these circumstances, and in the absence of any objection from the Respondent, which has not appeared in the proceeding, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the trade mark for the purpose of standing to file the Complaint – see section 1.4.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
Section 1.8 of WIPO Overview 3.0 makes clear that, where the relevant trademark is recognisable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms, whether descriptive or otherwise, would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.
Section 1.9 of WIPO Overview 3.0 adds that a domain name which consists of an obvious misspelling of a trade mark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element.
Here, the disputed domain name consists of an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trade mark (i.e., addition of the letter “e”) plus the descriptive prefix “my”. In the Panel’s view, the Complainant’s distinctive trade mark is readily recognisable within the disputed domain name.
For the above reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsAs explained in section 2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0, the consensus view is that, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If not, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.
Here, the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorised the Respondent to use its trade mark.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy gives examples of circumstances which, if proved, suffice to demonstrate that a respondent possesses rights or legitimate interests.
As to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, the disputed domain name has been used for a parking page with PPC links to claims-related services, which compete with those supplied by the Complainant. Such use of the disputed domain name could not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests. See section 2.9 of WIPO Overview 3.0, which states that use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalise on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s mark or otherwise mislead Internet users.
Nor is there any evidence that paragraphs 4(c)(ii) or (iii) of the Policy apply in the circumstances of this case.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case of lack of rights or legitimate interests and there is no rebuttal by the Respondent.
The Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the Complainant has therefore established the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithIn the Panel’s view, it is obvious that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name, which includes an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s highly distinctive name and trade mark and which comprises the “my[trade mark]” formulation, which the Complainant itself uses.
In the Panel’s view, paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy applies. By using the disputed domain name, reflecting the Complainant’s distinctive trade mark, in connection with a parking page with links to services relating to the Complainant’s industry (as well as links denoting the Complainant itself), the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark.
The Panel also notes that the Respondent has not come forward to deny the Complainant’s assertions of bad faith.
For the above reasons, the Panel considers that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith and that the Complainant has established the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
7. DecisionFor 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
Adam Taylor
Sole Panelist
Date: October 6, 2021
1 Section 4.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition notes that UDRP panels may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if they consider such information useful in assessing the merits of the case and reaching a decision. This includes visiting the website linked to the disputed domain name.