The Complainant is Informatica LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / jay ferg, United States.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 10, 2021. On August 11, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 11, 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 19, 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 20, 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 23, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 12, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 24, 2021.
The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on October 7, 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 in the business of providing cloud computing services. It owns the mark INFORMATICA and enjoys the benefit of registration of that mark in several jurisdictions around the world, including United States Reg. No. 1,951,679, registered on January 23, 1996.
The disputed domain name was registered on April 27, 2021. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a blank web page that lacks content. The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to set up email addresses, which it in turn has used to pose as employees of the Complainant and send messages to certain customers of the Complainant, seeking to trick those customers into sending payment to the Respondent’s bank account.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsTo succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(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.
The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThis element requires the Panel to consider two issues: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant mark; and, second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
The Panel finds the Complainant has established rights in the INFORMATICA mark based on the Complainant’s trademark registrations, identified above.
The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the INFORMATICA mark. The disputed domain name mimics the INFORMATICA mark by copying the mark but with only one minor alteration (the use of a lower case “l” as the first letter, which closely resembles an upper case “I” – that letter being the first letter in the Complainant’s mark). UDRP panels have consistently held that “[a] domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element.” See section 1.9 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
For the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsA complainant succeeds under this element if it makes a prima facie showing that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that prima facie showing remains unrebutted by the respondent.
The Complainant presents a number of arguments under this element. The Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant in any way. The Complainant has not given the Respondent permission to use the Complainant’s trademarks in any manner, including in domain names. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. And the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to the Policy, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to the Policy. Here, the Respondent is using a confusingly similar domain name to send phishing email messages.
These assertions establish the Complainant’s prima facie case. The Respondent has not addressed the Complainant’s arguments under this second Policy element. Seeing no other basis in the record to tilt the balance in the Respondent’s favor, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied this second Policy element.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithThe Policy requires a complainant to establish that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The facts of this case show that the Respondent targeted the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name and when it used the disputed domain name to imitate the Complainant and seek to engage in fraud by sending phishing email messages. These facts clearly establish bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has succeeded under this third Policy element.
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
Evan D. Brown
Sole Panelist
Date: October 21, 2021