The Complainant is Arezzo Indústria e Comércio S.A., Brazil, represented by Baril & Advogados Associados, Brazil.
The Respondent is Rhonda Wray, United States of America (“US”).
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 9, 2021. On September 10, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 11, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 6, 2021 and inviting the Complainant to amend the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on October 7, 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 October 13, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 2, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 7, 2021.
The Center appointed Adam Samuel as the sole panelist in this matter on December 14, 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 manufacturer and retailer of footwear, bags and other items. The Complainant owns a number of trademarks for the mark AREZZO, including US trademark registration number 2596452, registered on July 23, 2002. The Complainant registered the domain name
The disputed domain name was registered on November 25, 2020. The disputed domain name has never resolved to a website.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe disputed domain name corresponds to the main part of the Complainant’s trademark and tradename, AREZZO.
There is no indication that the Respondent has any relationship with the Complainant. The Respondent has never been commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the dispute domain name. The Respondent cannot discharge its burden of showing that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent appears to have used the disputed domain name to access the Complainant’s systems in order to confuse email recipients and redirect payments to other accounts, essentially a phishing attempt. The email account of is its employees was accessed improperly, with the attacker deleting emails from the employee’s account. On the date on which the disputed domain name was registered, the disputed domain name was being used to redirect and delete emails from an employee of the Complainant’s account.
The disputed domain name is rooted in a name and trademark that is neither generic nor identified with any idea, practice or activity distinguishable from the Complainant’s business. AREZZO is not a word in common use. The Respondent had either actual or constructive knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark.
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.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s distinctive trademark AREZZO with the final “o” replaced by a “0”, and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. The gTLD is irrelevant here as it is a standard registration requirement. See section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
Section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 says:
“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. […]
Examples of such typos include […] substitution of similar-appearing characters (e.g. […] numbers used to look like letters)”.
For all these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThe Respondent is not called “Arezz0” or anything similar. There is no evidence that the Complainant has ever authorized the Respondent to use its trademarks. The Respondent does not appear to have used the disputed domain name for any legitimate purpose.
Based on the available record, where the Complainant has made out a preliminary case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, and in the absence of any response on this point, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithThe Complainant has produced evidence of the use of the disputed domain name to generate emails dated November 27, 2020, designed to divert payments from the Complainant’s bank account to another account. These incidents occurred two days after the registration of the disputed domain name.
In addition, the substitution of “0” for the similar looking “o” in the reproduction of the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name suggests that this is a typosquatting case.
Section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 says:
“Under the second and third elements, panels will normally find that employing a misspelling in this way signals an intention on the part of the respondent (typically corroborated by infringing website content) to confuse users seeking or expecting the complainant.”
For all these reasons, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
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 Samuel
Sole Panelist
Date: December 21, 2021