The Complainant is Khadi & Village Industries Commission, India, represented by Fidus Law Chambers, India.
The Respondent is Bmo Software, India.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 6, 2021. On August 6, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 7, 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 August 9, 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 August 12, 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 August 17, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 6, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties Commencement of Panel Appointment Process on September 23, 2021.
On August 25, 2021, the Center received an email communication from the named Respondent, Bmo Software, indicating that disputed domain name is for the benefit of its client.
The Center appointed Maninder Singh as the sole panelist in this matter on October 18, 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 Complainant is stated to be a statutory body formed in April 1957 by the Government of India, under the Act of Parliament, “Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act of 1956”. The Complainant is engaged in the promotion and development of the KHADI brand and the products under the KHADI trademark through the institutions certified by the Complainant. The Complainant claims to have adopted the trademark “KHADI” (which forms a part of its trade name, corporate name and trading style) on September 25, 1956 and the same has been in use continuously till date. The Complainant claims that by virtue of its adoption more than sixty years ago, and extensive use thereof, the trademark “KHADI” has become exclusively and globally associated with the Complainant in the eyes of consumers. The KHADI Trademarks are also registered in various other jurisdictions/regions.
The Complainant provides evidence of several registrations in different jurisdictions for the mark KHADI, including International Registration No. 1272626 registered on December 2, 2014, and Indian Registration No. 2851524 registered on November 27, 2014, with a first use date of September 25, 1956.
The disputed domain name was registered on September 30, 2019.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant in its complaint has, inter alia, raised the following contentions:-
The Complainant organization is stated to have been established under the Ministry of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (“MSME”), Government of India with objectives to provide employment in rural areas, producing saleable articles and creating self-reliance amongst people. The Complainant claims to have taken over, in April 1957, the work of former All India Khadi and Village Industries Board. The Complainant claims to play an important role in Indian economy with generation of employment in about 2.48 lakh villages in India. Its head office is in Mumbai, and it has six zonal offices. Other than its zonal offices, it has offices in 28 states for the implementation of its various programmes.
The Complainant is stated to have been implementing programs for the development of Khadi and other Village Industries (“KVI”) in the rural areas in coordination with other agencies. The programs offered by the Complainant are to promote products under the trademark KHADI. The Complainant also claims to work for upliftment and improvement of artisans, weavers and other members of small-scale village and rural industries.
The Complainant plans, promotes, organizes and implements programs for the development of Khadi and other village industries in rural areas. It also helps in building up reserve of raw materials for supply to producers. It focuses on the creation of common service facilities for processing of raw materials and semi-finished goods. The Complainant has introduced several interest subsidy schemes for artisans, weavers and other members of small-scale village and rural industries.
The Complainant claims to have owned numerous registrations for the word mark KHADI and device marks (hereinafter, the KHADI trademarks). The Complainant has annexed a list of the registered KHADI trademarks in India along with copies of the registration certificates as Annexure F. The Complaint’s KHADI Trademarks are also registered in various other jurisdictions/regions. The Complainant has annexed copies of the registration certificates as Annexure G.
The Complainant claims to have adopted the trademark “KHADI” (which forms a part of its trade name, corporate name and trading style) on September 25, 1956 and the same has been in use continuously till date. The Complainant claims that by virtue of its adoption more than sixty years ago, and extensive use thereof, the trademark “KHADI” has become exclusively and globally associated with the Complainant in the eyes of consumers.
The Complainant is stated to be engaged in the promotion and development of the KHADI brand and the products under the KHADI trademark through the institutions certified by the Complainant.
The Complainant states that it authorizes various retail sellers, organizations, societies and institutions to sell products under the KHADI trademarks. In order to be listed as an authorized user of the KHADI trademarks for purpose of sales and promotions of KHADI certified products and services, each organization has to apply for recognition through the Khadi Institutions Registration & Certification Sewa (“KIRCS”). A screenshot of the KIRCS page from the Complainant’s website is annexed as Annexure H.
The Complainant claims that there are about 7 sales outlets directly owned by the Complainant out of 8,050 sales outlets spread across the country all selling authorized/ licensed products under the KHADI trademarks. The KHADI trademarks are prominently featured on boards and hoardings of each store that is authorized to sell products under the KHADI trademarks. The Complainant has annexed images of these stores as Annexure I. The Complainant further claims that the Complainant’s KHADI trademarks are prominently featured on all the products sold by the Complainant in India and beyond.
The Complainant claims that the Complainant’s products bearing the KHADI trademarks are sold and showcased through exhibitions in various parts of the world. The Complainant has participated in several exhibitions and fairs to promote products and services under the KHADI trademarks and to encourage artisans, spinners and weavers of India. Further, the Complainant claims to have been actively involved in the community service in its efforts to further promote its products and services under the KHADI trademarks including sponsorship and organization of various events, competition and shows.
The Complainant states that for the purposes of promotion of the KHADI trademarks, the Complainant collaborated with the 14th edition of the Lakme Fashion Week, in which collections were made by four designer labels under the trademark “KHADI” and the same were exhibited during a designated Sustainable Fashion Day at Lakme Fashion Week on August 23, 2018. Further, the Complainant has also partnered with brands such as Raymond and Titan to promote the products under the trademark Khadi in the Indian and global markets.
The Complainant claims that the Complainant's products under the KHADI trademarks have been widely promoted through print and electronic media, including television programs, advertisements, articles, write-ups appearing in leading newspapers, magazines, journals, shopping festivals, exhibitions. Copies of some of the articles published in various magazines and journals and images have been annexed as Annexure N.
The Complainant also claims to operate several social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. all of which enjoy a wide followership. Copies of the screenshots from the Complainant’s social media platforms are annexed as Annexure O.
The Complainant also claims to operate a mobile application by the name of “Khadi India” to help customers, patrons and members of trade in locating the nearest Khadi India Store.
The Complainant claims to sell a wide range of products on its own e-commerce platform available at “www.kviconline.gov.in”. Extracts from the Complainant’s e-commerce platform have been annexed as Annexure Q. The Complainant also claims that it has also been promoting its products on its official social media pages such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter etc., which enjoy a wide followership, viewership, circulation and readership.
The Complainant claims that years of continuous efforts, time, capital, painstaking efforts and resources have been invested pursuant to which the KHADI trademarks have attained immeasurable goodwill and reputation so much so that the “KHADI” trademarks have attained paramount position and are identified exclusively with the Complainant and members of trade now recognize and associate the goods and services under the KHADI trademarks with the Complainant and none other.
Contentions of the Complainant regarding the disputed domain name being identical or confusingly similar to the Trademark or Service Mark of the Complainant:
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is deceptively similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark KHADI. The Complainant states that the content hosted on the website differs from the disputed domain name only in the addition of the letters. It is merely a misspelled / slightly tweaked version of the Complainant’s KHADI trademark. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark KHADI.
The Complainant further contends that the trademark “KHADI” has not been used by anyone other than the Complainant or its authorized license or franchisee holders. The Respondent is not a licensee or franchisee of the Complainant and has adopted the identical trademark with a view to ride upon the goodwill associated with the complainant’s well-known trademark “KHADI”.
The Complainant also contends that the content hosted at the disputed domain name comprises a deceptively similar mark with an intention to pass off their goods/services as that of the Complainant. The content includes sections such as “Khadiyas HUB”, “Khadias Mart” and “Khadiyas Farm Shop”. The Respondent also claims to provide fertilizers and pesticides under the “trademark Khadiyas” to farmers and facilitates the sale of food grains under the trademark “Khadiyas.
The Complainant also contends that due to the fame and reputation associated with the trademark “KHADI”, the content at the disputed domain name which incorporates the mark “Kadhiyas”, the first impression in the minds of the consumers shall be that the Respondent’s website originates from, is associated with, or is sponsored by the Complainant. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark KHADI. The Complainant further avers that the target consumers of the Complainant and the Respondent overlap enhancing the likelihood of consumer confusion.
The Complainant contends that the content of the website resolved at the domain contains “Khadiyas”, completely subsumes the Complainant’s prior registered trademark KHADI.
The Complainant relies upon decisions in
(i) CenterPoint Energy v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0155489582/Accounts ReceivableWIPO Case No. D2019-2638 holding that disputed domain name closely resembles and incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark but for a misspelling creating a word that does not exist in the English. As such the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, notwithstanding the apparently deliberate, misspelling.
(ii) AB Kvällstidningen Expressen v. Privacy Contact, UnoEuro Webhosting,WIPO Case No. D2018-1049, holding that the test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the domain name. In this case, the disputed domain name was confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The change of the letter “e” to “a” in the middle of the word represents a misspelling that does not provide sufficient distinction from the Complainant’s mark. The Complainant has contended that in the presence instance, the disputed domain name interchanges the letters “h” and “a” and addition of “iya” to the Complainant’s registered trademark KHADI.
The Complainant contends that the generic Top-level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not grant the disputed domain name distinctiveness regarding the trademark KHADI. The Complainant relies upon Ebel International Limited v. Alan Brashear,WIPO Case No. D2017-0001 and on Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,WIPO Case No. D2000-1525 which held that “The addition of the gTLD “.com” to the disputed domain name is irrelevant and immaterial for purposes of assessing confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trademarks (Diageo p.l.c. v. John Zuccarini,WIPO Case No. D2000-0541).
The Complainant contends that apart from the evident mala fide adoption of a deceptively similar trademark in the disputed domain name, the content on the website resolved on the disputed domain name uses the mark “Khadiyas” incorporates the Complainant’s trademark KHADI in its entirety.
Contentions regarding the Respondent having no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name:
The Complainant contends that the Respondent’s corporate name and the disputed domain name is merely a misspelled and tweaked version of the Complainant’s trademark KHADI. This has been done by the Respondent to simply divert consumers into buying the Respondent’s offerings under “Khadiyas” mark.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no legitimate interest with respect to the disputed domain name. The Complainant had also issued a legal notice to the Respondent but did not receive any response from the Respondent.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has not been used in connection with bona fide offering of goods or services by the Respondent. The domain name has been used to advertise goods under the mark “Khadiyas”, misleading the consumers into believing that it is in some manner affiliated to theComplainant by using the term “Khadiyas”. The disputed domain name is being used to advertise goods and services in violation of the trademark rights of the Complainant.
The Complainant also contends that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name solely for misleadingconsumers. Since its registration on September, 30, 2019, the Respondent has failed to establish any demonstrable preparation to use or actually use the disputed domain name for any legitimate purposes. Further, the wrongful and misleading advertisements and the products appearing on the Respondent’s website demonstrates the Respondent’s intention of commercial use of the website to have unlawful gains. Thus, the question of being known by the domain does not arise in the first place.
The Complainant further contends that none of the exemptions provided under paragraph 4(c) of the UDRP apply in the present circumstances. TheComplainant has not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to registeror use the disputed domain name or to use the KHADI trademark. The Complainant hasprior rights in the KHADI trademark, which precedes the registration of thedisputed domain name by the Respondent.
The Complainant submits that it has established a prima facie case that the Respondenthas no rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and thereby theburden of proof shifts to the Respondent to produce evidence demonstrating rightsor legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has referred to and relied upon decision in Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,WIPO Case No. D2000-0624; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455) and Payoneer, Inc. / Payoneer Europe Limited v. Korchia Thibault, Quniv S.A.WIPO Case No. DEU2019-0013.
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has not hosted any legitimate content on the website and is using the disputed domain name to advertise their products under the mark “Khadiyas”. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is phonetically similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark KHADI and is likely to confuse and deceive consumers into believing that the Respondent is affiliated with or authorized by the Complainant in some manner.
The Complainant has submitted that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s prior KHADI trademark so that the general public are led to believe that the disputed domain name is an e-commerce platform hosted by the Complainant to promote online sales of its products.
The Complainant contends that the sole purpose of the registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent is to misappropriate the reputation associated with the Complainant’s famous trademark “KHADI”. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its trademark/ trade name/trading style. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the term Khadi. There is no other meaning associated with that term other than in relation to the Complainant.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent uses the mark “Khadiyas” for commercial purposes and offers goods such as food grains and pulses under the mark ”Khadiyas” to facilitate sale of its products as well.
The Complainant also contends that the Respondent’s website landing page includes symbols, which perpetuates the misconception that the Respondent is authorized by the Complainant or the Government of India.
The Complainant further submits that the products offered by the Respondent under the mark “Khadiyas” on the disputed domain name overlap with these sold by the Complainant under the trademark KHADI.
The Complainant relies upon decision of the Centre in Emirates v. Privacy.co.com Privacy ID# 839118, Savvy Investments, LLC Privacy ID# 839118,WIPO Case No. D2019-2692, wherein the Panel held that in a case of misspelling, in the absence of authorization, permission or licensing from the Complainant, the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Similarly, in the present matter, the Respondent, in the absence of any manner of authorization from the Complainant, evidently has no rights of legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
Contentions regarding bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name by Respondent:
The Complainant contends that the primary aim of the Respondent is to disrupt the business of the Complainant and to take advantage of the goodwill and reputation associated with the Complainants trademarks.
The Complainant also contends that the Respondent’s mala fide intent is evident in using the mark “Khadiyas” on the website, which incorporates the Complainant’s trademark KHADI in its entirety.
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith to profit from the reputation of the Complainant. The mere fact that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, which is deceptively similar to the Complainant’s mark KHADI and the website uses the mark “Khadiyas”comprising the Complainant’s mark KHADI entirely is a clear indication of the bad faith adoption. The Respondent’s products also overlap with those of the Complainant. Further, the logo of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, the Charkha logo etc. have been used in order to make the Respondent’s website appear authentic and affiliated to the Government of India. Using the disputed domain name and associated website to directly infringe the Complainant’s trademarks, create initial interest confusion, diverts profits away from the Complainant, and potentially perpetuate fraud against consumers, demonstrates the Respondent’s wholly illegitimate purpose in registering and using the disputed domain name. The Complainant relies upon decision in Beachbody, LLC v. Registration Private, Domains by Proxy, LLC/Trang Pham Thi WIPO Case No. D2019-2123.
The Complainant contends that Respondent is also unauthorizedly using logos of government bodies. The Respondent’s website displays the partial image of official logo of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs under the Government of India. The Respondent is not authorized to use the said government logo and by misusing the same, the Respondent is misleading the general public into believing that the Respondent is Government affiliate.
The Complainant submits that paragraph 2 of the Policy implicitly requires a registrant to make some good faith effort to avoid registering and using disputed domain name corresponding to trademarks in violation of the Policy. The obligations imposed by paragraph 2 are an integral part of the Policy applicable to all registrants, cannot be ignored as was observed by the Panel in City Views Limited v. Moniker Privacy Services/Xander, Jeduyu, ALGEBRALIVE,WIPO Case No. D2009-0643. Hence, the Respondent had an onus to ensure that the registration of disputed domain name did not violate the Complainant’s trademark rights.
The Complainant has contended that the above instances clearly demonstrate the bad faith of the Respondent and that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Complainant contends that there is a great likelihood that actual or potential visitors to the Respondent’s website will be induced to believe that the Complainant has licensed their trademark KHADI to the Respondent or authorized the Respondent to register the said disputed domain name or that Respondent has some connection with the Complainant.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions except to say “This domain which you mentioned is not owned by us (BMO SOFTWARE). It is used by our existing client. I have informed them. We are just a domain service provider. And they are not our active client as of now and domain transfer has been processed. So as you mentioned if the client should not use this domain name. Will inform that also from outside.”
6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Complainant has furnished evidence of its rights in the trademark KHADI through details of some of its trademark registrations and common law rights have accrued to it through its long and substantial use of the mark not only in India, but certain other parts of the world.
The Panel has considered the documents submitted by the Complainant in support of its claim that the Complainant has been using and has various registrations for the trademark using the word “khadi”. There does not appear to be any doubt that the Complainant is the owner of trademark KHADI.
The Panel observes that the Complainant’s rights in the well-known trademark KHADI has been recognized by the Panel in Khadi & Village Industries Commission v. Contact Privacy Customer 1245389705 / Raghav Somani, Headphone Zone Pvt. Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2020-2244, Khadi& Village Industries Commission v. Himanshu Kumar Goel, Medisu Health Solutions,WIPO Case No. D2020-2162, and Khadi& Village Industries Commission v. Uttam Rao, Global Media Corp.,WIPO Case No. D2020-2934. In the aforementioned decisions, the Panel observed “that the Complainant’s KHADI mark is well-known, not only in India, but also in various parts of the world.”
The Panel agrees with the Complainant’s contention that the content hosted at the disputed domain name comprises a deceptively similar mark “Khadiyas” with an intention to pass off their goods/services as that of the Complainant. The Panel also agrees that due to the fame and reputation associated with the trademark “KHADI”, the content at the disputed domain name which incorporates the mark “Kadhiyas” the first impression in the minds of the consumers shall be that the Respondent’s website originates from, is associated with, or is sponsored by the Complainant. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark KHADI.
The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name is a case of misspelling and typosquatting.
The Panel also agrees with the Complainant’s contention that the gTLD “.com” does not grant the disputed domain name distinctiveness regarding the trademark KHADI. Attention of the Panel, in this regard, has been drawn to Ebel International Limited v. Alan Brashear,WIPO Case No. D2017-0001 holding that “the addition of the gTLD “.com” to the disputed domain names is irrelevant and immaterial for purposes of assessing confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trademarks.”
The Complainant has therefore succeeded in establishing the first element of the test in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThe Panel observes that the Complainant has made out a case proving its rights in the trademark KHADI. The Complainant enjoys goodwill and reputation for the marks registered by it. The Panel has no doubt that the disputed domain name incorporates the well known and famous trademark KHADI of the Complainant by interchanging the letter “h” with “a” and adding “yas” to it. The Complainant has also placed on record its contention supported by the contents of the disputed domain name (printouts annexed with the complaint) that same / similar products are being offered to the unwary consumers. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Panel is of the view that such an attempt on the part of the Respondent is to create confusion and to cash on/ride over the name, goodwill, and reputation of the Complainant.
The Panel observes that the Respondent is in no way related to the Complainant or its business activities – the Respondent is not an agent of the Complainant, nor does he carry out activities for the Complainant. The mark KHADI, in the above-mentioned background, indisputably vests in the Complainant as evidenced by various statutory registrations not only in India, but other jurisdictions as well, secured by the Complainant.
The Panel finds merit in the Complainant’s claim that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and now the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to produce evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not submitted any such evidence. The attention of the Panel in this regard has been drawn to Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,WIPO Case No. D2000-0624; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).
The Panel agrees that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s prior KHADI trademark such that the general public are led to believe that the disputed domain name is an e-commerce platform hosted by the Complainant to promote online sales of its products.
The Panel also agrees with the Complainant’s contention that the sole purpose of the registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent is to misappropriate the reputation associated with the Complainant’s famous trademark “KHADI”. The Panel finds that the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its trademark/ trade name/trading style. Thus, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the mark KHADI.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithThe Panel observes that the disputed domain name is deceptively similar to the Complainant’s trademark KHADI. The Respondent’s use of the mark “Khadiyas” in the disputed domain name is a violation of the Complainant’s KHADI trademark. The Panel observes that the Respondent cannot have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Panel also observes that the Respondent has not submitted any rebuttal of the Complainant’s contentions that the primary aim of the Respondent is to disrupt the business of the Complainant as well as take advantage of the goodwill and reputation associated with the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Panel also observes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith to profit from the reputation of the Complainant.
The Panel observes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith to profit from the reputation of the Complainant. The Panel agrees with Complainant’s contention that fact that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, which is deceptively similar to the Complainant’s mark KHADI and the website uses the mark “Khadiyas” comprising the Complainant’s mark KHADI entirely is a clear indication of the bad faith adoption.
The Panel observes that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name and associated website to directly infringe the Complainant’s trademarks, create confusion and diverts profits away from the Complainant.
The Panel observes that there is virtually no possibility that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s trademark, its existence or presence in the market. In this regard, the Panel refers to and relies upon the previous UDRP decision in Consitex S.A. Lanificio Ermenegildo Zegna & Figli S.p.A. Ermenegildo Zegna Corporation v. Mr. Lian Ming,WIPO Case No. DWS2003-0001 – holding that a respondent could not ignore the existence of a well-known trademark at the time of registering a domain name.
The Panel, in these facts, observes that the Respondent had registered the disputed domain name for the sole purpose of misleading the consumers. By doing so, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith to profit from the reputation of the Complainant.
The Panel, therefore, finds that the disputed domain name was registered and being used in bad faith by the Respondent.
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
Maninder Singh
Sole Panelist
Date: November 1, 2021