The Complainant is Adobe Inc. of United States of America (“United States”), represented Perkins Coie, LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Ahad Akbarpour of Islamic Republic of Iran. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 7, 2020. On May 11, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to IRNIC a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Names. On May 12, 2020, IRNIC 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 .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “irDRP”), the Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 19, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 8, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. On June 9, 2020, the Center notified the Respondent’s default. The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on June 17, 2020. 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 uses its trademark ADOBE in connection with various computer software related offerings since 1986 in the United States. The Complainant owns worldwide rights in its ADOBE trademark, among others, the following United States trademark registrations for it: - United States trademark, ADOBE, Registration No. 1475793, registered on February 9, 1988; - United States trademark ADOBE, Registration No. 1486895, registered on May 3, 1988; and - United States trademark ADOBE, Registration No. 1956216, registered on February 13, 1996. The Respondent registered the following Disputed Domain Names: - - - - - The Disputed Domain Names The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows: Identical or confusingly similar The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ADOBE trademark, as the Disputed Domain Names wholly incorporate the Complainant’s trademark or a misspelling of it with the addition of the generic terms “meeting” or “connect” or a misspelling of the terms, along with the “.ir” country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”). Consequently, the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ADOBE trademarks. Rights or legitimate interest The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no license or authorization to use the Complainant’s ADOBE trademarks. In addition, according to the WhoIs information, the Respondent is not commonly known by any of the Disputed Domain Names. The Complainant further states that the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s ADOBE trademark of the website associated with the Disputed Domain Names is not authorized. In addition, the Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Names resolves to a website that prominently features the Complainant’s ADOBE trademarks in connection with an offer of sale of the Complainant’s Adobe Connect product and offers services to the public under the following email address “[…]@adobeconnect.ir”. In the website, the Respondent does not display a disclaimer stating that they are not an authorized reseller of the Complainant’s products. In addition, the Respondent provides several links and buttons on the website, that when selected, begin downloading files on the user’s computer. The file names are variations of “AdobeConnect” and “ConnectAppSetup”. In this sense, it is evident that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights in its ADOBE trademark. This shows that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. Therefore, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. Registration and use in bad faith The Complainant claims that the Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Names to pose as the Complainant or the Complainant’s affiliate for commercial gain. Each of the Disputed Domain Names contain the Complainant’s ADOBE trademark or a misspelling of it, which is a clear intention to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the Disputed Domain Names. Furthermore, the Respondent benefits from the confusion created by the use of the Disputed Domain Names which wholly incorporate the Complainant’s ADOBE trademarks. Consequently, consumers encountering the Disputed Domain Names will likely believe that the Respondent is affiliated with the Complainant. Finally, the Complainant alleges that considering the fame of the Complainant’s ADOBE trademarks demonstrates that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s rights in its ADOBE trademark prior to the time the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Disputed Domain Names at issue in this case: (i) the Disputed Domain Names are 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 Names; and (iii) the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complaint’s ADOBE trademarks. All of them, reproduce the entirety of the Complainant’s ADOBE trademarks, except for the Disputed Domain Name Finally, neither the ccTLD “.ir”, nor the dictionary terms “connect”, “conect” or “meeting” are of any significance to the present assessment of confusing similarity. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances, any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names: (i) before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use of the Disputed Domain Names or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names, even if the Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service at issue. There is no evidence of the existence of any of those rights or legitimate interests. The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the Disputed Domain Names or to use the ADOBE trademark in the Disputed Domain Names. Furthermore, the Respondent is not known by the Disputed Domain Names. The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any rights with respect to the Disputed Domain Names. Moreover, it had the opportunity to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests, but instead did not reply. Finally, the Panel finds that the nature of the Disputed Domain Names linked with the website at the Disputed Domain Names carries a risk of implied association or affiliation with the Complainant’s trademark, where there is none. As such, the Panel finds that the Complainants has satisfied the second requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent registered and subsequently used the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith. The Disputed Domain Names were registered between 2010 and 2016, several years after the Complainant registered its ADOBE trademarks. The fact that the Respondent offered the Complainant’s products and services at the website immediately after registering the Disputed Domain Names clearly demonstrates that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s products when registering the Disputed Domain Names. Furthermore, the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use any of its trademarks or to register the Disputed Domain Names incorporating its trademarks. Neither the Respondent is an authorized reseller of the Complainant’s product and services. In addition, the Complainant submitted evidence that the Respondent’s presented himself as an authorized reseller of the Complainant’s Adobe Connect product. Thus, Internet users might have well been under the impression that it is a website created and operated by a distributor or reseller of the Complainant with the Complainant’s consent. The circumstances in the case before the Panel indicate that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademarks when registering the Disputed Domain Names and it has created a likelihood of confusion with the Complaint’s trademarks and website in order to attract Internet users for his own commercial gain. Due to this conduct, it is obvious that the Respondent intentionally created likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks and website in order to attract Internet users for his own commercial gain, as required by paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Therefore, taking all circumstances into account and for all above reasons, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith. 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 Names Pablo A. Palazzi
Sole Panelist
Date: July 1, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy