WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Covestro Deutschland AG v. King Prime

Case No. D2019-2811

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Covestro Deutschland AG, Germany, represented by BPM Legal, Germany.

The Respondent is King Prime, United Kingdom (“UK”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <covetsro.com> ( the “Domain Name”) 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 November 16, 2019. On November 18, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 19, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 19, 2019, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 24, 2019.

The Center verified that the Complaint, together with the amended 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 November 25, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 15, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 16, 2019.

The Center appointed Gregor Vos as the sole panelist in this matter on December 18, 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 German company that operates worldwide and is one of the world’s largest polymers companies. The Complainant is the owner of amongst others the following trademarks (the “Trademarks”):

- European Trademark registration No. 013701412 for the wordmark COVESTRO, registered on
July 28, 2015;
- International Trademark registration No. 1272950 for the wordmark COVESTRO, registered on
May 15, 2015.

The Trademarks predate the registration of the Domain Name of August 19, 2019.

The Respondent seems to be a UK based individual that registered the Domain Name. The Domain Name resolves to an inactive website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademarks. The Complainant argues that the Domain Name contains the Trademarks with a reversed order of letters, so-called typosquatting. This would be a common, obvious, and intentional misspelling of the Trademarks. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) (“.com”) could be disregarded according to the Complainant.

According to the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainant argues that it appears that there are no predating rights of the Respondent. Further, the Complainant raises that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant or authorized by the Complainant to use the Trademarks. According to the Complainant, the Respondent uses the Domain Name to send fraudulent emails and phishing emails to customers of the Complainant in the name of one of the Complainant’s existing employees. For this reason, the Complainant argues that rights or legitimate interests cannot exist.

Finally, the Complainant asserts that the Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith. The Complainant argues that the Respondent knew or should have known the Trademarks, due to the high distinctiveness of the Trademarks and in relation to the Complainant. In addition, the Respondent has been involved in several UDRP proceedings. The fact that the Respondent uses the Domain Name for fraudulent activities would show that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Based on paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP, a request to transfer a domain name must meet three cumulative conditions:

(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In the administrative proceedings, the Complainant must prove that each of these three elements is present. Only if all three elements are fulfilled can the Panel grant the remedy requested by the Complainant.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP requires two elements to be proved. A disputed domain name should be (i) identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, (ii) in which a complainant has rights.

With respect to having rights pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP, it is noted that the Complainant is registered as the owner of the Trademarks, as can be seen from the submitted copies of the registrations of the Trademarks. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that it is the owner of the Trademarks.

With regard to the assessment of identity or confusing similarity of the Domain Name with the Trademarks, it is generally accepted that this test involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between a complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. While each case is judged on its own merits, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the disputed domain name, the disputed domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing (see section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)).

For the purpose of assessing confusing similarity under the Policy, the gTLD suffix (in the present case “.com”) is generally ignored in the comparison between the disputed domain name and a complainant’s trademark (see Bialetti Industrie S.p.A. v. Onno Brantjes, Stichting Taxaceae, WIPO Case No. D2016-1450; Canyon Bicycles GmbH v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Rob van Eck, WIPO Case No. D2014-0206; Zions Bancorporation v. Mohammed Akik Miah, WIPO Case No. D2014-0269).

A disputed domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element (see section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). It is well established that small variations and, in particular, the inversion of two letters are not sufficient to avoid confusing similarity (see Schneider Electric S.A. v. Domain Whois Protect Service / Cyber Domain Services Pvt. Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2015-2333; Sanofi, Genzyme Corporation v. Domain Privacy, WIPO Case No. D2016-1193). The Domain Name consist of a common, obvious, and intentional misspelling of the Trademarks. The letter “t” and the letter “s” have been reversed in the Domain Name. The facts furnished by the Complainant show that the Respondent must have registered the Domain Name with the misspelling intentionally for fraudulent activities.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademarks.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

In order to fulfil the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP, a complainant has to prove that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. As this may result in the often impossible task of “proving a negative”, a complainant bears the burden of prima facie showing that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If a complainant succeeds in making its prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to the respondent, which will then have to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (see section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).

The Panel finds that the Complainant showed that there are no indications for legitimate use of the Domain Name. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and is not authorized to use the Trademarks. Also, the Respondent is also not commonly known under the Domain Name, as its name does not correspond to the Domain Name. In addition, the use of a domain name for illegal activity, such as phishing and impersonation as in the case at hand, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent (see section 2.13 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).

Based on the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has sufficiently set out its prima facie case. The burden of production on this element therefore shifts to the Respondent. As the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s allegations, the Panel finds that the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP is fulfilled.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the UDRP is broadly understood to occur where a respondent takes unfair advantage of or otherwise abuses a complainant’s mark.

The evidence that the Complainant submitted demonstrates that the Respondent seeks to take unfair advantage of and abuses the Trademarks (see section 3.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). Considering the fact that the Domain Name consists of the Trademarks with an obvious misspelling of the Trademarks, the Panel finds that it is likely that Internet users when confronted with the Domain Name will be under the impression that there exists a relationship between the Domain Name and the Complainant and that Internet users could be confused. Moreover, the Respondent sent phishing emails to customers of the Complainant by impersonating one of its employees. The panel finds that this fraudulent behavior shows the bad faith registration and use of the Domain Name.

Considering the circumstances of this matter, the Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the UDRP is fulfilled.

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 Domain Name <covetsro.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Gregor Vos
Sole Panelist
Date: January 20, 2020