The Complainant is Fondation Tasis, Switzerland, represented by Weinmann Zimmerli, Switzerland.
The Respondent is Redacted for privacy, Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Tas Isn, United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 6, 2021. On December 6, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 6, 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. On December 20, 2021, the Center requested clarification from the response provided by the Registrar. The Registrar replied this request on December 20, 2022. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 27, 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 29, 2021.
The Center verified that the Complaint, together with the amendment to the Complaint, satisfied the formal requirements of the .SH Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for .SH Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .SH 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 February 7, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 27, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 3, 2022.
The Center appointed John Swinson as the sole panelist in this matter on March 7, 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 was founded 1956 and operates The American School in Switzerland, that has more than 700 day and boarding students designed to prepare students for American colleges and universities. The Complainant is known as TASIS, which is an abbreviation comprising the first letter of each word in “The American School in Switzerland”.
The Complainant uses the domain name
The Complainant owns several registered trademarks for or including TASIS. One of these trademarks is Swiss trademark registration no. 524300 for TASIS, filed on June 2, 2004.
The disputed domain name was registered on October 20, 2021. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website.
The Respondent did not file a Response, so little information is known about the Respondent. The WhoIs records state that the Respondent has an address in the United Kingdom.
The Respondent used the disputed domain name to send emails impersonating the admissions department of the Complainant, and asking the recipient to pay tuition fees into a bank account in Poland.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantIn summary, the Complainant makes the following submissions:
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s TASIS trademark.
The Respondent has only used the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant for attempted fraud. Such use is not bona fide. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
At the end of October and the beginning of November 2021, the Respondent used the disputed domain name to send several fraudulent emails with the sender using the term “admissions” as part of the email address “[…]@tasis.sh”. The Respondent impersonated the Complainant and offered the Complainant’s members a discount on the annual tuition fees, and asked them to send the fees to a bank account in Poland.
The Complainant is still investigating on how exactly the Respondent was able to collect the email-addresses of its members but is it highly probable that the Respondent hacked into Complainant’s IT systems.
After this criminal act, the Respondent not only registered a domain name that is identical with the Complainant’s name and trademarks but also chose a Top-Level Domain that is very similar to the one of the domain names used by the Complainant. The Respondent then created the email address using the term “admissions” as part of “[…]@tasis.sh” in the style of the email-address used by the Complainant’s admissions office.
By all these means, the Respondent tried to impersonate the Complainant, to deceive Complainant’s members and to cause them to send money in high amounts to its bank account. This fraudulent behavior using the disputed domain name is a prime example of a use in bad faith as defined by the Policy.
The address that the Respondent uses, as set out in the Registrar’s records, is a false address.
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 satisfy the Panel that:
(i) the disputed domain name is 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 name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name was registered or is being used in bad faith.
It is appropriate for the Panel to consider decisions under the UDRP because there are many similarities between the UDRP and the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe first element of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
As stated above, the Complainant owns a Swiss trademark registration for TASIS.
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s TASIS trademark.
The Complainant succeeds on the first element of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThe second requirement the Complainant must prove is that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances can be situations in which the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. These circumstances are illustrative only and are not an exhaustive listing of the situations in which a respondent can show rights or legitimate interests in a domain name.
The onus of proving this requirement, like each element, falls on the Complainant.
UDRP panels have recognized the difficulties inherent in proving a negative, however, especially in circumstances where much of the relevant information is in, or likely to be in, the possession of the respondent. Accordingly, it is sufficient for a complainant to raise a prima facie case against the respondent under this head and an evidential burden will shift to the respondent to rebut that prima facie case.
None of the circumstances listed in paragraph 4(c) apply in the present circumstances.
The Complainant alleges that there is no evidence of use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name by the Respondent in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant also alleges that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Further, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name - on the contrary, the Respondent has only used the disputed domain name in order to impersonate the Complainant for attempted fraud.
The Respondent sent emails from an email address at the disputed domain name, impersonating the Complainant, and requesting payments to a Polish bank account. Such use of the disputed domain name is clearly not bona fide.
The Complainant has rights in the TASIS trademark which precedes the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name.
There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Despite the fact that the Respondent provided the name “tas isn” at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name, the Panel notes the absence of any evidence supporting that may be the Respondent’s actual name. In any case, noting the use of the disputed domain name, the Panel finds no circumstances that could give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and thereby the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to produce evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to establish its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds the Respondent has no rights or any legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant succeeds on the second element of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name.
C. Registered or Used in Bad FaithParagraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent registered or used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Respondent’s conduct demonstrates the Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant and the Complainant’s trademark. By registering the disputed domain name which is identical to the Complainant’s trademark, and then using the disputed domain name to send fraudulent emails impersonating the Complainant, demonstrates that the Respondent specifically knew of and targeted the Complainant. See Fédération Française de Tennis (FFT) v. Daniel Hall, dotCHAT, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2016-1941; Akzo Nobel N.V. v. Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / jennifer alonso, jennyart,
WIPO Case No. D2021-4244.
The Respondent has not filed a Response and hence has not availed itself of the opportunity to present any case of good faith that it might have. The Panel infers that none exists. Regal Funds Management Pty Limited v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / John Clerk,
WIPO Case No. D2020-2773.
The current status of the disputed domain name, which does not resolve to an active website, does not prevent a finding of bad faith, given the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to send fraudulent emails.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Complainant succeeds on the third element of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name.
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
John Swinson
Sole Panelist
Date: March 21, 2022