50 days from registration to transfer - an example of the speed of a UDRP action filed with WIPO

In Calvin Klein Trademark Trust & Calvin Klein, Inc. v. Registration Private, Domains by Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case No. D2018-2882 (James Bridgeman, January 27, 2019), the Panel transferred calivnklein.com to the owner of the famous CALVIN KLEIN trademark. If you just read the previous sentence and thought this was a straight up cybersquatter case, where the infringer registers a domain name corresponding with the exact trademark of a brand owner, look at the disputed domain again closely-- it is actually a classic example of typosquatting, whereby infringers capture domain traffic where an Internet user is seeking a particular brand owner but mistakenly mistypes the web address of such brand owner.

This case is also a perfect example of how quickly an infringing domain can be recovered via a UDRP action filed with WIPO. In this instance, the infringer registered the disputed domain on December 10, 2018, Complainant filed its complaint on December 18, 2018, and the Panel issued its decision on January 27, 2019. Fifty days from registration to transfer - in the world of litigation, this is a lightning quick result.

Turning to the merits, the Panel first found that the disputed domain was confusingly similar to a trademark owned by Complainant. According to the Panel, "[t]he only difference between the two is that in the disputed domain name the letters 'i' and 'v' are reversed in sequence. This gives the initial appearance of identity and would take advantage of a typing error that would take the two letters in the wrong sequence."

As to whether the infringer had any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain, the Panel found none, noting that "it would appear that the disputed domain name is being used to resolve to a website which has been identified by an antivirus program as containing potentially dangerous content."

Finally, the Panel found that the disputed domain was registered and used in bad faith. "This Panel accepts the Complainant’s submission that because of the similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s CALVIN KLEIN trademark in circumstances where the disputed domain name was on the balance of probabilities registered in an exercise of typosquatting to divert Internet traffic away from the Complainant, there is no conceivable possibility that the disputed domain name was registered for any good faith purpose." The panel further emphasized the "potentially dangerous content" of the website connected to the disputed domain. And lastly, the Panel noted that "Respondent has been the unsuccessful party in a large number of cases brought under the Policy... This is indicative of a pattern of bad faith registrations which allows this Panel in all the circumstances to find that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith."

And so the Panel ordered the transfer of the disputed domain to the brand owner.