The Complainant is Linklaters LLP, United Kingdom, represented by Maucher Jenkins, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Whois Agent, Domain Protection Services, Inc., United States of America / Mime Mitropoulos, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 12, 2021. On November 15, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 15, 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 17, 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 19, 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 December 14, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 3, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 4, 2022.
The Center appointed Eva Fiammenghi as the sole panelist in this matter on January 19, 2022. 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 limited liability partnership registered in the United Kingdom under the name “Linklaters LLP” and has been since February 27, 2007.
The Complainant has its headquarters in the United Kingdom and, together with its affiliates, provides legal services under the name “LINKLATERS” from 31 offices in 21 countries worldwide.
The Complainant, its affiliates and predecessor entities have been providing legal services under the “LINKLATERS” name since 1838.
The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations consist of or contain the word “LINKLATERS”, which have been registered in numerous countries all over the world, prior to the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, which was registered on October 27, 2021. Amongst others, International trademark registration LINKLATERS, No. 723079, registered on August 17, 1999.
The disputed domain name is an identical reproduction of the Complainant’s trademark, except that the Respondent has added a double letter ‘l’ in the middle of the Complainant’s trademark.
The disputed domain name was registered on October 27, 2021. It has been used to create multiple email addresses impersonating the Complainant’s employees to contact the Complainant’s clients, with fraudulent and criminal purposes.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant argues that the only element of difference between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark is only the double letter “l” in the disputed domain name. This little element can mislead Internet users, due to the fact that the disputed domain name is nearly identical to the Complainant’s trademark.
Thus, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name to advance legitimate interests. The Complainant has never licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademark or to register any domain name including its trademark.
The Complainant further argues that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The Complainant alleges that since the day after the disputed domain name was registered, the Respondent has been using email addresses connected to the disputed domain name to contact Complainant’s clients.
The Respondent contacting the Complainant’s clients required the change of payment information to make next payments to the Respondent’s bank account. The Complainant contends that the Respondent’s fraudulent emails look like legitimate emails usually sent from the Complainant. In fact, its client received an email purporting to be from one of the lawyers and partners based in the location of one of the Complainant’s offices.
Said email is to be considered as an attempted phishing scam.
The Complainant demonstrates how the email addresses connected to the disputed domain name had the sole purpose of misleading the recipient into redirecting payments meant for the Complainant to an unauthorized bank account under the Respondent’s control.
The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsUnder paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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 was registered and is being used in bad faith.
These elements are discussed in turn below. In considering these elements, paragraph 15(a) of the Rules provides that the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any other rules or principles of law that the Panel deems applicable.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Complainant has shown it owns trademark rights in the LINKLATERS trademark.
The disputed domain name
In view of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, in which the Complainant has demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that it has rights for several years.
The first element of the Policy has, therefore, been met.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsAccording to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii), the Complainant has to demonstrate that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, previous UDRP panels have recognized that proving a respondent’s lack of rights or lack of legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often-impossible task of “proving a negative”. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or lacks legitimate interests in the use of the domain name similar or identical to the complainant’s trademarks, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating its rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.
In this case, the Respondent is not in any way affiliated with the Complainant, nor has the Complainant authorized or licensed the Respondent to use its trademarks, or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating said trademarks.
The Complainant contends that there is no relationship with the Respondent that gives rise to any license, permit, or other rights to which the Respondent could enjoy such use of any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademarks.
Moreover, the Panel finds no evidence that the Respondent has used, or has undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering its goods or services.
Likewise, no evidence has been adduced that the Respondent has commonly been known by the disputed domain name; nor, for the reasons mentioned above, is the Respondent making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that the Complaint fulfills the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithUnder paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Complainant must show that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. A non-exhaustive list of factors constituting bad faith registration and use is set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy.
The Panel considers that the disputed domain name is virtually identical to LINKLATERS trademark differing only by the adding the double letter “l” in the word and this is not sufficiently distinguishable from the Complainant’s LINKLATERS trademark.
It is well settled that the practice of typosquatting constitutes obvious evidence of the bad faith registration of a domain name. See Lexar Media, Inc. v. Michael Huang,WIPO Case No. D2004-1039 (“Typosquatting has been held under the Policy to be evidence of bad faith registration of a domain name”); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Longo,WIPO Case No. D2004-0816 (“[typosquatting] is presumptive of registration in bad faith”).
The disputed domain name has been intentionally registered as a common typographical version and it appears confusingly similar to the LINKLATERS trademark.
Moreover, the Respondent registered and then used the disputed domain name to perpetrate an email scam or phishing scheme.
The Complainant asserted and provided evidence that the Respondent used the disputed domain name in connection with email addresses in order to impersonate the Complainant and fraudulently induce the Complainant’s clients to make a payment to an account that was not the Complainant’s account.
The Respondent has not contested the Complainant’s allegations.
The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name as part of an email address to send out a fraudulent email to one of the Complainant’s clients also falls under the concept of use of a domain name in bad faith pursuant to 4(b) of the Policy.
It has been long established under the UDRP that the concept of use is not confined to the use of a domain name in connection with website content displayed at a disputed domain name. See, for example, B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Jackie Upton, WIPO Case No. D2010-0841.
Such use of a domain name, although not one of the non-exhaustive examples of bad faith registration and use of a domain name set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, clearly falls under the concept of use of a domain name in bad faith.
The use of a confusingly similar, deceptive domain name for an email scam has previously been found by UDRP panels to be sufficient to establish that a domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel therefore accepts these allegations as undisputed facts and concludes that the Respondent registered and was using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
For these reasons, the Panel holds that the Complainant has met its burden of showing that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. The third element of the Policy has, therefore, been met.
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
Eva Fiammenghi
Sole Panelist
Date: February 2, 2022