WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Total Temperature Inc. d/b/a Instrumart v. Bob Lee, Dlsvls LLC

Case No. D2015-0818

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Total Temperature Inc. d/b/a Instrumart of South Burlington, Vermont, United States of America, represented by Gravel & Shea PC, United States of America.

The Respondent is Bob Lee, Dlsvls LLC of Puteaux, France.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <instrurnart.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Everyones Internet, Ltd. dba SoftLayer (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 11, 2015. On May 12, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On May 12, 2015, the Registrar 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 Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform 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 20, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 9, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 10, 2015.

The Center appointed Gabriela Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on June 22, 2015. 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 is an industrial and laboratory instrument supplier incorporated in Vermont, United States of America, trading as “Instrumart”. The Complainant registered its service mark INSTRUMART (the “INSTRUMART Mark”) in the United States of America on June 30, 2009. It has been using the INSTRUMART Mark since 2004. The Complainant also owns the domain name <instrumart.com>, which was registered on May 24, 2004.

The Respondent is an individual based in France. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on May 5, 2015.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:

(a) The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar, due to its visual resemblance, to the INSTRUMART Mark in which the Complaint has registered rights.

(b) The Respondent has provided no evidence of having any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. In fact, the Complainant is aware of only one use of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent, namely to pose as the chief executive officer (“CEO”) of the Complainant in order to solicit a fraudulent wire transfer.

(c) The Respondent used the Disputed Domain Name shortly after its registration to contact an employee of the Complainant, posing as the Complainant’s CEO, in a bad faith attempt to solicit the said employee to transfer money from the Complainant’s account.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove each of the following three elements:

(i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and

(iii) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the INSTRUMART Mark based on its service mark registration for the same in the United States of America.

It is a well-established rule that a domain name which contains an obvious misspelling of a trade mark will normally be found to be confusingly similar to such trade mark, where the misspelled trade mark remains the dominant or prominent element of the domain name (Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. v. LaPorte Holdings, WIPO Case No. D2004-0971). In this case, the only difference between the main element of the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s INSTRUMART Mark is the use of the letters “rn” instead of the letter “m”, a difference which was clearly chosen to mislead the target employee into believing that the Disputed Domain Name is associated with the Complainant (especially given that the domain extension “.com” is the same domain extension used by the Complainant in its <instrumart.com> domain name).

The Panel accordingly finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the INSTRUMART Mark in which the Complainant has rights, and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in a domain name by demonstrating any of the following:

(i) before any notice to it of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name was in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) the Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, even if it has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or

(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.

The Complainant is required to establish a prima facie case in respect of the lack of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent then bears the burden of proving otherwise, failing which, paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy shall be deemed to have been satisfied (see paragraph 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455 and Accor v. Eren Atesmen, WIPO Case No. D2009-0701).

Since no Response has been submitted by the Respondent, the Panel will assess whether or not the Respondent has any rights in the Disputed Domain Name (or lack thereof) based on the inferences that can be reasonably drawn from the Complainant’s evidence and the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves.

The Panel accepts that the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor has the Complainant otherwise authorised or consented to the use of the Complainant’s INSTRUMART Mark. Further, the Panel accepts that the Respondent has provided no evidence to demonstrate that he has become commonly known by, or produced any evidence of registration of the INSTRUMART Mark anywhere in the world. Overall, the Panel is of the view that a prima facie case is established and it is for the Respondent to prove he has rights or legitimate interests to the Disputed Domain Name.

Based on the evidence provided by the Complainant in the Complaint, the Disputed Domain Name has been used by the Respondent to attempt to solicit an employee of the Complainant to initiate a wire transfer by posing as the Complainant’s CEO using an email address ending with the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has not been using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name without intent for commercial gain.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name 11 years after the Complainant first registered its <instrumart.com> domain name, 11 years after the Complainant first began using the INSTRUMART Mark and 6 years after the Complainant first registered the INSTRUMART Mark.

It is clear that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its INSTRUMART Mark when he registered the Disputed Domain Name, given the fraudulent email sent to an employee of the Complainant using an email address incorporating the Disputed Domain Name on the same day the Disputed Domain Name was registered. The email claims to be sent by the Complainant’s CEO (referring to the CEO by name) and requests assistance from the employee in processing a wire transfer.

Due to the contents of the email and the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s INSTRUMART Mark, and the fact that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its INSTRUMART Mark at the time he registered the Disputed Domain Name (for the reasons stated above), the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith to mislead and confuse a target employee into falsely believing that the Disputed Domain Name is associated with the Complainant and its INSTRUMART Mark, for fraudulent commercial gain, i.e. to receive a wire transfer of money from the Complainant.

The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is satisfied.

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 name, <instrurnart.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Gabriela Kennedy
Sole Panelist
Date: July 6, 2015