The Complainant is Elecnor, S.A. of Madrid, Spain, represented by Clarke, Modet y Cia. S.L., Spain.
The Respondent is Helroo, S of Enugu, Nigeria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the Domain Name) is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 7, 2017. On November 7, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 8, 2017, 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 verified that 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 November 15, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 5, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 10, 2017.
The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on December 18, 2017. 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 Background
The Complainant owns the trade mark ELECNOR registered in the European Union and registered first in time in Spain in 1986 in relation to construction services.
The Domain Name registered in 2017 has been used as part of an email scam to get payment of false invoices. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:
The Complainant is a leading corporation in project development and construction and owns the trade mark ELECNOR in, inter alia Spain and the European Union used since at least 1958 in relation to construction services and related goods and services. It owns and domain names consisting of ELECNOR and the relevant country code Top-Level Domains (“ccTLD”s) in a number of countries including in South America. It operates across the world including in Columbia.
The only difference from the Complainant’s trade mark in the Domain Name is the addition of the ccTLD “.co” designating Columbia and since a Top Level Domain is a standard registration requirement it is disregarded under the first element of the Policy for the confusing similarity test. Therefore the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s trade mark for the purpose of the Policy.
The Respondent has never been known by the Domain Name and has no trade mark rights in ELECNOR. The Complainant has not given the Respondent permission to use the Complainant’s trade mark. The Respondent did not answer the letters to it from the Complainant. The page linked to the Domain Name simply indicates that the web site is not available.
ELECNOR is a mark with a worldwide reputation and the Respondent’s registration of it in the “.co” Domain when the Respondent has no connection with that name is opportunistic bad faith. The failure of the Respondent to respond to the Complainant’s letters supports this conclusion. Further the Respondent has been abusively sending out emails to employees of the Complainant claiming the payment of false invoices using the names of real worker for the Complainant and the Complainant’s “.com” domain name mixed with the Domain Name is documents. By doing so the Respondent has clearly attempted to use the Domain Name in a fraudulent manner. The Domain Name could also be used for phishing. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Decision A. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s ELECNOR trade mark (registered, inter alia, in Spain from 1986 and the European Union for, inter alia construction services) and the ccTLD “.co”.
The ccTLD “.co” does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s ELECNOR mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name.
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy to a mark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name.
The only known use of the mark is in an illegitimate and fraudulent email scam which cannot be a bona fide offering of good and services.
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. C. Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or explained why it should be allowed to register a domain name containing the Complainant’s distinctive registered mark in what appears on the face of it to be a typosquatting registration designed to mimic the Complainant’s domain name.
Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use. Here the typosquatting is compounded by use of the Domain Name in a fraudulent email scam. The fraudulent email contains the Complainant’s name and the names of impersonated employees of the Complainant showing the Respondent is well aware of the Complainant and its business and has used the Domain Name unlawfully to cause confusion on the Internet for commercial gain satisfying paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy. 7. Decision
For 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 be transferred to the Complainant.
Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: December 20, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy