WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Tenaris Connections BV v. Tim Good

Case No. D2018-2832

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Tenaris Connections BV of Buenos Aires, Argentina, represented by Mitrani, Caballero & Ruiz Moreno Abogados, Argentina.

The Respondent is Tim Good of Sentsa, Singapore.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <tenariz.com> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 11, 2018. On December 12, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 13, 2018, 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 19, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 8, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 9, 2019.

The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on January 23, 2019. 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 a well-known internationally based manufacturer and supplier of steel pipe. Tenaris was formed and renamed in 2001 after a lengthy and expensive branding study and exercise. The Complainant’s mark TENARIS (the Mark) was thereafter registered in dozens of countries (e.g., United States of America registration no. 2679032 for TENARIS, registered January 21, 2003), and the Complaint registered numerous domain names that incorporated the Mark, including its principal website “www.tenaris.com”. The Complainant has expended significant resources throughout the world promoting and advertising its products. Tenaris Connections BV v. WeiBing, WIPO Case No. D2010-0233.

The disputed domain name was registered on September 7, 2018. While it does not resolve to an active website, the disputed domain name has been used in an email scheme targeting the Complainant’s clients.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark because the disputed name only changes the last letter of the Mark from an “s” to a “z”, which have a similar phonetic sound. The Complainant asserts the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as the Respondent is not generally known by the disputed domain name and there is no record of any bona fide business activity by the Respondent. Finally, the Complainant asserts the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith to trick the Complainant’s business customers using the fraudulent email addresses “[...]@tenariz.com” to parade as the Complainant. The Complainant has submitted evidence to this effect.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark. The disputed domain name adopts the Mark entirely only changing the last letter of the Mark from “s” to “z” which is a phonetic equivalent. AltaVista v. O.F.E.Z. et al., WIPO Case No. D2000-1160 (misspelling or typographical variation of a well-known mark is “confusingly similar”); Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. v.John Zuccarini and The Cupcake Patrol a/k/a Country Walk a/k/a Cupcake Party, Case No. D2000-0330 (transferring disputed domain names utilizing the term “brtannica”).

The Complainant has met its burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel finds the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent has conduct any boda fide business under the disputed domain name or the Mark, and the Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. The disputed domain name is not being used for parody or other good faith purpose. Marriott International, Inc. v. Thomas, Burstein and Miller, WIPO Case No. D2000-0610 (no legitimate interest where respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name); Nu Mark LLC v. Perfect Privacy, LLC / Kyle Messier, Apex Juice, WIPO Case No. D2018-1082; World Natural Bodybuilding Federation, Inc. v. Daniel Jones TheDotCafe, WIPO Case No. D2008-0642. Evidently, the use of the disputed domain name in connection with a fraudulent email scheme cannot give rise to any rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent.

The Complainant has met its burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It is inconceivable that the Respondent willy-nilly seized upon the disputed domain name without knowledge of the defendant. Telstra Corp. Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (only feasible explanation for registration of the disputed domain name is intention to cause confusion, mistake and deception). Moreover, the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use is clearly established by the evidence provided by the Complainant that the Respondent deceptively used the email address “[...]@tenariz.com” to attempt to trick the Complainant’s customers into placing orders with the Respondent. Valero Energy Corporation and Valero Marketing and Supply Company v. Lacey Larsen, WIPO Case No. D2018-1875; NCI Group, Inc. v. Natasha Godinese, WIPO Case No. D2015-0145.

The Complainant has met its burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of 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 <tenariz.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

William F. Hamilton
Sole Panelist
Date: January 27, 2019