A domain leading with "www" is designed to capture the attention of Internet users who are trying to seek a particular website, but mistakenly omit the period after the "www" portion of the web address. Such domain registrations constitute "typosquatting," a form of domain infringement designed to capture "typing" mistakes by Internet users.
In this case, Respondent failed to enter an appearance to defend itself from the claims of typosquatting, but under WIPO's guidelines, judgment by default is not simply entered in favor of a complainant. Rather, "Complainant must still establish each of the three elements required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy." Continuing, the Panel noted that "[a]lthough the panel may draw appropriate inferences from the respondent’s default, paragraph 4 of the Policy requires the complainant to support its assertions with actual evidence in order to succeed in these proceedings."
Turning to the three elements a complainant is required to prove to prevail in a UDRP claim, the Panel first assessed whether or not the disputed domain was identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant had rights. The Panel had no difficulty determining that this threshold showing had been met, noting that "various panels have found that the fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered trademark is sufficient to establish identity or confusing similarity for the purpose of the Policy." The Panel further noted that "the addition of prefixes 'www' and 'the', the suffix 'store' and the TLD '.com' do not in any way disguise the confusing similarity of the Disputed Domain Name with the Complainant’s registered and well-known LEGO Trademark."
Looking at the second element, namely, Respondent's absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain, the Panel accepted Complainant's assertions that Respondent was not authorized or licensed to use or register the disputed domain, which incorporated Complainant's well-known mark. With a prima facie case made that the Respondent had no rights to the disputed domain, the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain shifted to Respondent. "Given that the Respondent was duly notified of the Complaint and has chosen not to rebut it on merits, the Panel draws an adverse inference against the Respondent with respect to the allegations made by the Complainant, from the silence of the Respondent."
As to the final element, whether the disputed domain was registered and used in bad faith, the Panel had no problem finding the necessary nefarious conduct. First, the Panel noted again the well-known nature of Complainant's LEGO mark, and found that Respondent's knowledge of Complainant's mark prior to the registration of the disputed domain demonstrated its bad faith. Second, the Panel also found it to be bad faith for Respondent to ignore the three cease and desist letters sent by Complainant. Third, the Panel found that by using the disputed domain for sponsored links used for commercial gain, Respondent took advantage of consumer confusion for its own commercial gain.
And thus, the Panel ordered the transfer of the disputed domain.
Comments