WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

CitiusTech Healthcare Technology Private Limited v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd.

Case No. D2015-2186

1. The Parties

The Complainant is CitiusTech Healthcare Technology Private Limited of Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, represented by Vutts & Associates LLP, India.

The Respondent is VistaPrint Technologies Ltd. of Hamilton, Bermuda, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("United Kingdom").

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <citivstech.com> is registered with Tucows Inc. (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on December 2, 2015. On December 2, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 2, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 4, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 24, 2015. The Center received a communication from the Respondent's hosting service on December 8, 2015. The Respondent did not file a formal response.

The Center appointed Benoit Van Asbroeck as the sole panelist in this matter on January 5, 2016. 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, CitiusTech Healthcare Technology Private Limited, is an Indian company focusing its business in India as well as in the United States of America ("USA"), and is expanding its business to other countries. The Complainant is a leading provider of healthcare technology services and solutions. The Complainant builds applications, deploys enterprise-level software and is a pioneer in healthcare analytics on the international market.

The Complainant submitted evidence that it holds trademark rights for CITIUSTECH (the "Trademark") in India and the USA for several classes, including USA trademark CITIUSTECH (and device), registered August 12, 2014, and that the Trademark features in the corporate names of the Complainant.

The Complainant further indicated that the CITIUSTECH mark was first adopted by the Complainant as its brand name and logo in 2005 when the Complainant was established with the name "Citius IT Solutions Private Limited". The Trademark was also used as a part of the name of the Complainant's subsidiary company in the USA, "CitiusTech, Inc.", which was established on July 11, 2005. On October 10, 2015 the Complainant changed its own name to "CitiusTech Healthcare Technology Private Limited".

The Complainant submitted that it has been using the CITIUSTECH mark continuously and exclusively as from the date of adoption. Since inception, the CITIUSTECH mark has featured as the brand name, corporate name and umbrella trademark of the Complainant.

Furthermore, the Complainant submitted evidence that it is registered the domain name <citiustech.com> in 2005.

The disputed domain name <citivstech.com> was registered on October 14, 2015.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in the present case, as follows:

(a) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered rights in which the Complainant has rights. The disputed domain name incorporates in its entirety the Complainant's Trademark but that the Respondent merely substituted the letter "U" with letter "V". The Complainant further submits that to a layman this change is negligible and thus the difference as projected in the disputed domain name is without significance. The Complainant invokes in such context that a domain name which contains a common or obvious misspelling of a trademark will be found to be confusingly similar to such trademark, where the misspelled trademark remains the dominant or principal component of the domain name.

The Complainant argues that there is a high likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain and the Complainant's Trademark since the public would mistakenly assume that the Respondent's services originate from the same source as, or are associated with, the services of the Complainant. Accordingly, the Complainant contends that there is an extremely high similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's Trademark in its entirety as to appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.

The Complainant asserts that the use of the Trademark itself, or with slight variations, does not serve any purpose of the Respondent but rather causes confusion and deception given that the Trademark is an invented word. The Complainant also alleges that the Trademark is well-known and thus that Internet consumers would believe that there is an inevitable connection between the disputed domain name and the Complainant.

Finally, the Complainant contends that the Respondent was aware of the commercial value of the Complainant's mark given that the latter is currently using the Trademark in relation to its various services in India and the USA, and that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name after the registrations and applications of the Trademark in both countries.

(b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant asserts that it has rights in CITIUSTECH and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name because (i) use of the disputed domain name for showing itself as the Complainant or related to the Complainant and duping innocent people for monetary gain is not a bona fide offering of goods and services; (ii) the Respondent is neither known by the disputed domain name nor has it been licensed by the Complainant; and (iii) there has been no apparent effort to make noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name given the Respondent's conduct.

More particularly, the Complainant argues that the Respondent does not have any prior rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name given that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name after the Complainant had been running its business under the Trademark for over a decade.

Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is illegitimately and fraudulently posing as the Complainant and cheating people to fraudulently obtain money from the Complainant. In this context, the Complainant presents facts that establish that the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name was intentional with the sole intention of committing fraud by impersonating the Complainant's CEO.

The Complainant also argues that the Respondent has been using the disputed domain name as a "parked landing service" which contains hyperlinks to the Respondent's webpage, which demonstrates that the Respondent was trying to take advantage of the Complainant's image and did not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of such use. The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent has never used nor has any intentions of using the disputed domain name but was merely trying to misleadingly divert consumers to the website to which the disputed domain name resolves for commercial gain.

Finally, the Complainant affirms that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant nor has it obtained any authorization or license to register or use any domain name incorporating the Trademark.

(c) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith given that the Respondent's sole intention was to commit fraud by impersonating the Complainant's CEO.

Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent is intentionally misleading the Complainant and its employees, consumers and Internet users for commercial gain, and that the Respondent's conduct is designed to disrupt and hurt the Complainant's business for monetary gains. The Complainant further contends that that the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith because it demonstrates that the Respondent was aware of the significance of the word "citiustech" and the Trademark, and clearly intended to cash-on and disrupt and dupe the Complainant for profit.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant is required to establish the two following elements: (1) that it has trademark rights, and, if so, (2) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark(s).

This Panel finds that the Complainant has clearly evidenced that it has registered trademark rights to CITIUSTECH.

A domain name which contains a common or obvious misspelling of a trademark normally will be found to be confusingly similar to such trademark, where the misspelled trademark remains the dominant or principal component of the domain name (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0"), paragraph 1.10, and the relevant UDRP decisions cited therein).

Accordingly, regarding the Complainant's trademark CITIUSTECH, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name which contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant's CITIUSTECH trademark is confusingly similar to such trademark.

This Panel further notes, similarly to other UDRP panels, that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com" to the disputed domain name does not constitute an element so as to avoid confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy.

On the basis of the foregoing findings, and according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, this Panel finds and concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's CITIUSTECH Trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists circumstances, in particular but without limitation, which, if found by the Panel to be proved, demonstrate the Respondent's rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy reads:

"Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii):

(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue."

This Panel finds in light of the Complainant's asserted facts, that no license, permission or authorization of any kind to use the Complainant's trademark has been granted to the Respondent. Thus, it appears that the Respondent has no rights in the Trademark.

Moreover, this Panel finds that there is no evidence that would suggest that the Respondent, as an individual, business, or other organization, has been commonly known by the disputed domain name.

An examination of the website operating under the disputed domain name shows no evidence that the Respondent has used, or undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. The disputed domain name resolves to a landing page with a hyperlink to a webhosting service. As set out in more detail below, this Panel believes that the Respondent's registration was intentional with the sole intention of committing fraud.

This Panel further finds that no evidence has been presented that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

For all the foregoing reasons, this Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy identifies, in particular but without limitation, four circumstances which, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy reads:

"For the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location."

Each of the four circumstances in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, if found, would be an instance of "registration and use of a domain name in bad faith."

First of all, with regard to the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name, this Panel believes after reviewing the evidence presented by the Complainant, that the Respondent must have known and been aware of the Complainant's rights on the prior CITIUSTECH Trademark and the associated products and services at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.

Furthermore, this Panel has considered the Complainant's assertions and evidence with regard to the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name. As asserted by the Complainant, and supported in evidence, the Respondent appears to have made use of the disputed domain name to send fraudulent email communications in the name of the Complainant's CEO to one of the Complainant's employees, requesting the payment of an invoice in the amount of USD 9,260 by wire transfer. This Panel considers the above to be bad faith use of the disputed domain name for the purposes of the Policy.

In light of the foregoing, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith under the Policy.

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 <citivstech.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Benoit Van Asbroeck
Sole Panelist
Date: January 19, 2016