WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Screening Eagle Technologies AG v. James Rich, Company Limited

Case No. D2020-2057

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Screening Eagle Technologies AG, Switzerland, represented by Hepp Wenger Ryffel AG, Switzerland.

The Respondent is James Rich, Company Limited, Germany.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <screeningseagle.com> is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Openprovider (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 4, 2020. On August 4, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 5, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 5, 2020, 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 August 7, 2020.

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 August 7, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 27, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 28, 2020.

The Center appointed David Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on September 10, 2020. 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 Swiss joint stock corporation. The Complainant provides a cloud-based technology platform connecting sensors, software, and data. For use in connection with the Complainant’s goods and services, the Complainant has registered, inter alia, the following trademarks:

- International Trademark Registration No. 1385881, SCREENING EAGLE, registered on August 11, 2017;

- Swiss Trademark Registration No. 705938, SCREENING EAGLE, registered on February 24, 2017; and

- Hong Kong, China, Trademark Registration No. 304171383, SCREENING EAGLE, registered on June 13, 2017.

The Complainant is also the owner of International Trademark Registration No. 1385890, (figurative) consisting of a stylized eagle’s head, registered on August 11, 2017.

The Complainant operates a corporate consumer-facing website at “www.screeningeagle.com”. The domain name <screeningeagle.com> has been registered to the Complainant’s related company, Tectus SA, since December 13, 2016.

The disputed domain name was registered on July 14, 2020. The disputed domain name has been used to send emails purporting to originate from the Complainant to customers of the Complainant. Notably, on July 24, 2020, the disputed domain name was used to send the following email:

“Dear [redacted]

Good day.

Please advice the exact date you are going to transfer the payment of this order, so i can you the revise invoice with our updated bank account details for your payment. Your urgent reply is needed.

As per information given, order will be ready by today, latest by early next week. We will send the shipping documents once available.

Waiting for your reply with he exact date you are going to transfer the payment of this order, so i can you the revise invoice with our updated bank account details for your payment.

Thank you. [sic]”

The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts rights in the trademark SCREENING EAGLE. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its SCREENING EAGLE trademark, the only difference between the two being the inclusion of the letter “s” between the two words making up the Complainant’s trademark.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant asserts that the registrant details provided by the Respondent are false, noting that it was unable to find any record of “James Rich, Company Limited” in Germany, and further noting that the address listed for the Respondent in the WhoIs details transmitted by the Registrar does not appear to correspond to any location in the WhoIs-listed registrant city. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a fraudulent email scheme, which cannot constitute any bona fide use of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. In this regard, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name has been used in an attempt to impersonate the Complainant’s accountant, making use of the same salutation used by the Complainant in its communications, as well as making use of the Complainant’s figurative eagle’s-head trademark, in an attempt to mislead the recipient. The Complainant notes that the disputed domain name was registered only ten days prior to the sending of such fraudulent emails, and submits that it can be assumed that the disputed domain name was registered for the sole purpose of sending phishing emails. The Complainant further claims that the provision of false WhoIs information is further evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith.

The Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

In order to prevail in its Complaint, the Complainant is required to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that it has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, namely:

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

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and,

(iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights in the SCREENING EAGLE trademark, the registration details of which are provided in the factual background section above.

The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, differing only in terms of the addition of the letter “s” to the word “screening” and the omission of the space between the words making up the Complainant’s trademark – a space being incapable of representation in a domain name per se. Prior UDRP panels have found that domain names consisting 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 WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.9. Despite the altered spelling of “screening” as “screenings”, the Complainant’s SCREENING EAGLE trademark is readily recognizable in the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SCREENING EAGLE trademark. The Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has provided copies of emails indicating that the disputed domain name has been used to create an email address “[name]@screeningseagle.com”, which has in turn been used to email a customer of the Complainant, soliciting payment to a bank account, presumably in control of the Respondent. Such emails were not sent by the Complainant. Rather, the Respondent appears to be engaged in a fraudulent email scheme, whereby the Respondent is attempting to impersonate an officer of the Complainant in order to obtain payment from unsuspecting customers of the Complainant.

Prior UDRP panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., phishing, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent; see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13. The Panel finds that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name, as described above, clearly indicates a lack of any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the part of the Respondent. The Respondent has not come forward with any evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and none of the examples of bona fide use of a domain name contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy can be said to apply in the present case.

The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

It can be inferred from the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in connection with a fraudulent email scheme, as described above, that the Respondent had the Complainant in mind when registering the disputed domain name, and did so with a view to impersonating the Complainant. Given that the use of a domain name for per se illegitimate activity such as phishing can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent, such behavior is manifestly considered evidence of bad faith. The Panel finds that the Respondent’s provision of false or incomplete WhoIs information further evidences the Respondent’s bad faith.

For reasons set out above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant has satisfied the requirements of 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 <screeningseagle.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

David Taylor
Sole Panelist
Date: September 24, 2020