The Complainant is Jera Global Markets PTE LTD, Singapore, represented by Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, Singapore.
The Respondent is Proxy Protection LLC, United States of America (“United States”) / Hannah Townsend, 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 November 2, 2021. On November 2, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 2, 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 November 3, 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 November 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 November 8, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 28, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 30, 2021.
The Center appointed Antony Gold as the sole panelist in this matter on December 27, 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 was formed in 2015. It is located in Singapore and is part of an international group of companies whose activities include trading in liquid natural gas and coal. The Complainant and other group entities trade as JERA and the Complainant’s ultimate parent company, JERA Co., Inc, licenses its portfolio of JERA marks to the Complainant.1 These marks include, by way of example only, United States registration number 5,029,192, for JERA in classes 4 and 39, registered on August 30, 2016. The Complainant also owns and operates many domain names which comprise or include the mark JERA including
The disputed domain name was registered on April 8, 2021. It resolves to a holding page which states: “You have reached a domain name that is pending verification per ICANN rules but has since been verified” and explains that the disputed domain name has been suspended either because the Respondent’s email address has not been verified or because the Respondent’s contact data has been changed and requires verification.2
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant says that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its JERA trade marks. The addition to the disputed domain name of a single letter does not detract from its confusing similarity to the Complainant’s mark and amounts to classic typosquatting; see Open Society Institute v. Total Care Pharma,WIPO Case No. D2020-2396. The disputed domain name is phonetically and aurally identical to the Complainant’s JERA mark and on a visual and holistic assessment, the word JERA will be found by the ordinary, reasonable user to have been reproduced in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant says also that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. There is no connection between the Respondent and the Complainant, the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, and has not obtained any authorization from it to use its trade marks. Moreover, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. It is evident that the Respondent is a typosquatter and the registration of a minor variation of a well-known mark in order to take advantage of typographical errors or mistaken perception by Internet users cannot give rise to a right or legitimate interest on the part of the Respondent; see Open Society Institute v. Total Care Pharma, supra.
Lastly, the Complainant says that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Previous UDRP panels have found that the mere registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark by an unaffiliated entity can create a presumption of bad faith. This is particularly the case if the domain name in issue comprises a typosquat variation of a complainant’s mark. Furthermore, given the widespread commercial recognition of the Complainant’s JERA’s trade marks, the Respondent knew, or should have known, of them as at the time of its registration of the disputed domain name and such an awareness gives rise to an inference of bad faith registration. Additionally, registration of a domain name which imitates a complainant’s mark save for the addition of an additional letter, is undoubtedly suggestive of a respondent’s bad faith; see Pinsent Masons LLP v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Pinsent Masons invoicing,WIPO Case No. D2020-0533. Finally, the fact that the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website does not prevent a finding of bad faith registration under the doctrine of passive holding; see Tommy Bahama Group, Inc. v. Registration Private, Domains by Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico,WIPO Case No. D2019-0198.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsDealing, first, with the Respondent’s failure to file a response to the Complaint, paragraph 14(b) of the Rules provides that if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with a provision of, or requirement under these Rules, the Panel shall be entitled to draw such inferences from this omission, as it considers appropriate.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that the Complainant proves each of the following three elements in order to succeed in its Complaint:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(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 Complainant has provided details of its trade and service mark registrations for JERA, which establish its rights in this mark.
As a technical requirement of registration, the Top-Level Domain, that is “.com” in the case of the disputed domain name, is typically disregarded when assessing confusing similarity. The disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s JERA trade mark, save for the addition of a second “r”, followed by the letters “gm”. These last two letters are likely intended to be perceived as an acronym for the words “global markets”, which the Complainant uses on its website in conjunction with its trade mark. In any event, none of the additional letters, whether individually or cumulatively, prevent the disputed domain name from being found confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. As explained at section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0: “Where the relevant trade mark 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”. See also LinkedIn Corporation v. Daphne Reynolds,WIPO Case No. D2015-1679.
The Complainant’s JERA mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name and the Panel accordingly finds that it is confusingly similar to trade and service marks in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsParagraph 4(c) of the Policy provides, without limitation, examples of circumstances whereby a respondent might demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. In summary, these are if a respondent has used, or made demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, if a respondent has been commonly known by the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name, or if a respondent has made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark in issue.
None of the grounds set out at paragraph 4(c) of the Policy are applicable. Use of a domain name which resolves to an inactive website comprises neither a bona fide offering of goods and services nor a legitimate noncommercial, nor a fair use, of it; see Skyscanner Limited v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / petrov petya,WIPO Case No. DCC2020-0003. Nor is there any evidence which might suggest that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Complainant has put forward a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Once a complainant has made out a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, the burden of production shifts to the respondent; see Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455. In the absence of any response from the Respondent to the Complaint, it has failed to satisfy that burden. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithIn considering whether the Respondent was likely to have registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant, it is material to take into account that the term “Global Markets” used on the Complainant’s official website is sometimes contracted to the acronym “gm”, so that its brand is presented as “JERAGM”. This term is also used as the Complainant’s principal domain name, that is
The inactive status of the disputed domain name is not a bar to a finding of bad faith. Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 explains that: “From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or ‘coming soon’ page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put”. See also VOLKSWAGEN AG v. Danny de graaf,WIPO Case No. D2020-1940.
Applying these factors, briefly, to the current circumstances; (i) the Complainant’s JERA mark is inherently distinctive and has been registered in multiple jurisdictions; (ii) the Respondent has not responded to the Complaint, nor is there any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use by it; (iii) the Respondent has sought to conceal its identity through use of a privacy service; and (iv) having regard to the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s JERA mark and its near identity to the Complainant’s domain name
For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was both registered and is being used 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,
Antony Gold
Sole Panelist
Date: January 10, 2022
1 There is no need in this decision to distinguish between the Complainant, its parent company, or other group companies and they are collectively referred to below as “the Complainant”.
2 As explained at section 4.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision. The Panel has accordingly visited the website to which the disputed domain name resolves in order to establish the use which is presently being made of it, in addition to visiting the Complainant’s website in order to establish its trading style.