The Complainant is Johnson Outdoors Gear, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c., United States.
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States / Carmen Keith, 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 18, 2021. On November 18, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 19, 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 19, 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 December 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 December 8, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 28, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 29, 2021.
The Center appointed Kathryn Lee as the sole panelist in this matter on January 12, 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 manufacturer of outdoor recreational products, such as watercrafts, diving equipment, fishing gear, outdoor clothing, and camping gear. The Complainant has used the JETBOIL trademark in connection with portable gas cooking units, crockery, and cutlery since as early as 2004, and owns trademark registrations for JETBOIL in several jurisdictions, including Registration Number 2957651, registered in the United States on May 31, 2005; Registration Number 728889, registered in New Zealand on November 3, 2005; and Application Number 004167482, registered in the European Union on January 20, 2006. The Complainant also owns and uses the JETBOIL family of marks for camping equipment and tools including JETBOIL SUMO (United States Registration Number 4115786) registered on March 20, 2012, and JETBOIL FLASH (United States Registration Number 4131878) registered on April 24, 2012. The Complainant has owned the domain name
The Respondent appears to be an individual with an address in the United States.
The disputed domain name was registered on October 11, 2021, and resolves to a website claiming to be the website of the Complainant and advertising the Complainant’s goods for sale.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the JETBOIL trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The disputed domain name incorporates the JETBOIL trademark in its entirety, and the other term “sales” is merely a term which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
The disputed domain name is likely to confuse consumers looking for the Complainant’s legitimate website.
The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and confirms that it has not authorized or licensed rights to the Respondent in any respect. The Complaint explains that the Respondent attempted to pass itself off as the Complainant by using the JETBOIL trademark and the contents from the Complainant’s official website at the website linked to the disputed domain name. By doing so, the Respondent sought to unlawfully collect sensitive personal and financial information from visitors who were deceived into believing that they were accessing the Complainant’s legitimate website, and such use does not confer rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith. The Complainant explains that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name at least 17 years after the Complainant started using the JETBOIL mark, and linked it to a website nearly identical to the Complainant’s official website. This shows that the Respondent knew of the Complainant and its business, and registered the disputed domain name in a bad faith attempt to confuse customers looking for the Complainant’s legitimate website. The Complainant also explains that the visitors to the disputed domain name were asked to provide personal and financial information such as name, address, and credit card details, and contends that the Respondent unlawfully profited financially from misappropriation of the personal information of others and created a disruption in the Complainant’s business interests.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Complainant has demonstrated with supporting evidence that it has rights to the trademark JETBOIL and the JETBOIL family of marks. As for the disputed domain name, it contains the JETBOIL mark in its entirety along with the term “sales” separated by a hyphen. In this regard, “sales” is an added term, and the hyphen is a mere punctuation which can be disregarded from consideration, which leaves “jetboil”, corresponding to the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7 establishes that a domain name is considered confusingly similar to a trademark where it “incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name.”
For the reasons mentioned above, the Panel finds that the first element has been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsOn the basis of the present record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made the required allegations to support a prima facie case showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie case has been established, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, with the burden of proof always remaining with the Complainant. However, the Respondent in this case has chosen to file no Response to these assertions by the Complainant, and there is no evidence or allegation in the record that would warrant a finding in favor of the Respondent on this point.
Further, the Respondent used the disputed domain name in an apparent phishing scheme in which the Respondent passed itself off as the Complainant and solicited sensitive information from Internet users, and the use of a domain name for illegal activity can never confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. In addition, the Panel notes the nature of the disputed domain name, which carries a risk of implied affiliation. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.
For the reasons provided above, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the second element has been established.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithThe Panel finds that there is strong and clear evidence to find bad faith in this case.
The website at the disputed domain name falsely presented itself as the website of the Complainant, and copied many elements from the Complainant’s legitimate website including the images, font, and color scheme, which all contributed to a very similar overall look and feel, and confused visitors to believe that it is the official website of the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark, amounting to registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. Further, the Respondent apparently sought to illegally collect personal and financial information from Internet users for its own financial gain. Using a domain name in a fraudulent activity is manifestly evidence of bad faith registration and use. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4 and section 3.4.
For the reasons given above, the Panel finds that the third element has been established.
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,
Kathryn Lee
Sole Panelist
Date: January 26, 2022