The Complainant is Consumer Reports, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Cozen O’Connor, United States.
The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland/ eddy to, China.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 27, 2021. On August 30, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 30, 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 September 6, 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 September 8, 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 September 13, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 3, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 5, 2021.
The Center appointed Taras Kyslyy as the sole panelist in this matter on November 3, 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 a non-profit consumer product testing and advocacy organization that publishes the print and digital family of Consumer Reports publications. Formed as an independent, non-profit organization in 1936, the Complainant serves the public through product testing and ratings, research, journalism, public education, and advocacy. In November 2016, the Complainant changed its name from Consumers Union of United States, Inc. to Consumer Reports, Inc.
The Complainant has been using the CONSUMER REPORTS trademark continuously since at least as early as 1942. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for marks containing “Consumer Reports” including for instance the United States trademark registration No. 672,849, registered on January 20, 1959.
The disputed domain name was registered on August 31, 2020 and resolves to a website providing product reviews and ratings.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name is virtually identical to the Complainant’s trademark in sight, sound, appearance, and commercial impression. The only difference between the Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name includes the word “trusted” in between “consumer” and “reports”.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The use of the disputed domain name has no connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. The Respondent is intentionally attempting to mimic the Complainant’s reviews and ratings but instead of operating independently, the website at the disputed domain name drives sales to the products it reviews presumably in exchange for a commission. The Respondent refers to itself as “www.comsumertrustedreports.org” throughout its website. Moreover, the Complainant has not given the Respondent permission to use its registered trademarks or any domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers and/or tarnish the Respondent’s trademark rights. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to intentionally pass itself off as the Complainant.
The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name is virtually identical to the Complainant’s trademark. The website at the disputed domain name is an attempt to copy the legitimate consumer reviews that the Complainant has offered for approximately the past 80 years. However, instead of being an independent non-profit like the Complainant, the Respondent reviews and rates products in the hopes of driving sales of those products in order to receiving a commission on those sales. As a result, a substantial number of users of the website at the disputed domain name are likely to be confused about the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the site. The Respondent intended to trade on the Complainant’s trademark and continues to do so. The Respondent operates the website at the disputed domain name for commercial gain making money when a user clicks a review on the Respondent’s website and is sent directly to Amazon in order to purchase the product. The Respondent makes a commission on these sales as an Amazon Affiliate. The disputed domain name is intended as a reference to the Complainant. Persons using a search engine to locate the Complainant are likely to be led to the website at the disputed domain name due to the metatags and the similarity of the domain names. The Respondent intends to trade on the Complainant’s trademark for commercial gain: the Respondent deliberately selected the Complainant’s trademark as a salient part of the disputed domain name knowing it was a reference to the Complainant, rather than a non-infringing alternative. The Respondent intended to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark since, among other reasons, the Respondent is using the identical disputed domain name on its website. Moreover, the Respondent is attempting to provide the same types of product reviews that the Complainant provided. Taking into account the above there is no plausible circumstance under which the Respondent could legitimately register or use the disputed domain name.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarAccording to section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (the “WIPO Overview 3.0”) the applicable generic Top-Level Domain (the “gTLD”) in a domain name (e.g., “.com”, “.club”, “.nyc”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. Thus, the Panel disregards gTLD “.org” for the purposes of the confusing similarity test.
According to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark the domain name will normally be considered identical or confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing. The Panel finds that in the present case the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark.
According to section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. The Panel finds that in the present case the addition of term “trusted” does not prevent finding the confusing similarity.
Considering the above the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThe Complainant has established prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Furthermore, the Respondent provided no evidence that it holds rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, which could demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests (see, e.g., World Natural Bodybuilding Federation, Inc. v. Daniel Jones, TheDotCafe,/ Victoria McCann / Robert Hope,WIPO Case No. D2008-0642).
The Complainant did not license or otherwise agree for use of its prior registered trademarks by the Respondent, thus prima facie no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name could be reasonably claimed (see, e.g., Sportswear Company S.P.A. v. Tang Hong, WIPOCase No. D2014-1875).
The Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name on a website offering overlapping services is neither a bona fide offering of services, nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to the Policy (see, e.g., Option One Mortgage Corporation v. Option One Lending,WIPO Case No. D2004-1052).
Noting the risk of implied affiliation between the widely known trademark of the Complainant and the confusingly similar disputed domain name and moreover the use to which it is put, the Panel finds that there is no plausible fair use to which the disputed domain name could be put that would not have the effect of being somehow connected to the Complainant (see, e.g., Instagram, LLC v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot / Zayed,WIPO Case No. D2019-2897).
Considering the above the Panel finds the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithAccording to section 3.2.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 further factors including the nature of the domain name, the chosen top-level domain, any use of the domain name, or any respondent pattern, may obviate a respondent’s claim not to have been aware of the complainant’s mark. In the present case, the Respondent uses the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark to offer services similar to the Complainant’s. The Panel finds that the nature of the disputed domain name and its use proves the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant’s prior trademark rights, which confirms the bad faith.
According to section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. The Panel is convinced that the Complainant’s trademark is well established through long and widespread use and the Complainant has acquired a significant reputation and level of goodwill in its trademark both in the United States and internationally. Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name identical to the Complainant’s trademark was registered in bad faith.
According to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location. In this case, the disputed domain name is resolving to a website designed to make a false impression of being connected to the Complainant to intentionally attract – and here, direct users to the Amazon sales platform, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source of the website and its services. The Panel finds the above confirms that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
The Respondent ignored its possibility to comment on the contrary and provide any good explanations to prove its good faith while registering and using the disputed domain name.
Considering the above, the Panel finds the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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,
Taras Kyslyy
Sole Panelist
Date: November 17, 2021