The Complainant is KPPB LLP, United States of America (“United States”), internally represented.
The Respondent is David Czinczenheim, France.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 7, 2021. On September 8, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 14, 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 14, 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 amendment to the Complaint on September 14, 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 17, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 7, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 8, 2021.
The Center appointed Adam Taylor 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 an intellectual property law firm.
The Complainant has traded under the name “KPPB” since 2007 including prominent use of the mark on stationery and on its website at “www.kppb.com”. The mark has also achieved substantial press coverage.
The disputed domain name was registered on July 23, 2021.
As of August 18, 2021, the disputed domain name resolved to a “for sale” page.
The disputed domain name has been used as the sender email address for emails to the Complainant’s clients, which impersonated the Complainant’s staff, including use of the Complainant’s email address structure and signature block, and which sought to convince recipients to send money to fraudulent accounts.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe following is a summary of the Complainant’s contentions.
The Complainant has acquired common law trade mark rights in the term “KPPB”, which has become a distinctive identifier that the public associate with the Complainant’s goods and services.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark as it is a typo-squatting variation thereof, adding a third “p”.
The Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
There is no evidence of use, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Nor of legitimate noncommercial or fair use. On the contrary, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for phishing emails.
There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Respondent has used the disputed domain name for deceptive and illegal purposes, namely to impersonate the Complainant in order to try and steal money from the Complainant’s clients.
Furthermore, the practice of typo-squatting is of itself evidence of bad faith.
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 established unregistered rights in the mark KPPB by virtue of use of that term as a trading name for some 14 years.
Section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) makes clear that a domain name which consists of an intentional misspelling of a trade mark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. This stems from the fact that the domain name contains sufficiently recognisable aspects of the relevant mark.
In this case, the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s mark, except that it adds an extra “p”, converting “pp” into “ppp”. Furthermore, as explained in section 6C below, the disputed domain name is plainly an intentional misspelling of the Complainant’s mark.
For the above reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark and 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 Panel has concluded below that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant and steal money from its clients. Such use of the disputed domain name is clearly not bona fide.
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.
For the above reasons, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has established the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithGiven the evidence of use of the disputed domain name for emails impersonating the Complainant and attempting to defraud its clients, the Panel readily concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent.
For the above reasons, the Panel considers 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: November 1, 2021