In a classic typosquatting case involving inversion of letters, the Panel in Costco Wholesale Membership Inc., Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Markus Tamn, WIPO Case No. D2018-2523 (Pablo A. Palazzi, December 20, 2018), transferred the domain costoc.com to the well-known warehousing giant Costco. The entire process from filing the Complaint to the date of decision was 45 days, or roughly the equivalent of hours I spend per year standing in line at Costco.
The Panel first confirmed that the disputed domain was confusingly similar to a trademark owned by Complainant, noting that "[t]he inversion of the letters 'c' and 'o' in the Disputed Domain Name represents a misspelling that does not provide sufficient distinction from the Complainant's trademark."
Next examining whether Respondent held any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain, the Panel found no such rights or interests. More specifically, the Panel noted that "[t]he Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the Disputed Domain Name or to use the trademark in the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has prior rights in the trademark, which precede the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name. In addition, the Respondent is not known by the Disputed Domain Name."
Regarding whether Respondent registered and used the disputed domain in bad faith, the Panel found bad faith as to both. Noting that Complainant has owned trademark rights since 1985, the Panel held that Respondent's registration of the disputed domain way back in 2001 was done in bad faith. According to the Panel, "Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith since it is a typographical misspelling of and is confusingly similar to Complainant’s well-known COSTCO trademark." As to bad faith use of the disputed domain, the Panel held that "in view of the Respondent’s registration of a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well known trademark, the absence of any documented rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the Disputed Domain Name and its failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s lack of use of the Disputed Domain Name also amounts to bad faith."
And so the Panel ordered the transfer of the disputed domain.
Comments