WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Easy Online Solutions, Ltd. d/b/a MojoHost v. Maxx
Case No. D2021-0303
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Easy Online Solutions, Ltd. d/b/a MojoHost, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Silverstein Legal, United States.
The Respondent is Maxx, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <themojohost.tech> (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 February 1, 2021. On February 1, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 2, 2021, 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 February 11, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 3, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 10, 2021.
The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on March 12, 2021. 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 owns the mark MOJOHOST registered, inter alia, as United States registered trademark no. 4,177,472 on July 24, 2012 for web site hosting services. It owns and uses the domain name <mojohost.com> for its web site.
The Domain Name was registered on December 7, 2020 and has been linked to a web site that was advertising an email marketing system, but currently does not resolve to an active web site.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:
The Complainant owns the mark MOJOHOST registered, inter alia, as United States registered trademark no. 4,177,472 on July 24, 2012 for web site hosting services. It owns and uses the domain name <mojohost.com> for its web site.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MOJOHOST trademark adding only the dictionary word “the” and the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.tech” which do not prevent said confusing similarity.
The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant.
The Domain Name does not currently resolve to an active web site, but was pointed to a site advertising an email marketing system. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
The Domain Name was registered in opportunistic bad faith in December 2020 four days after the Complainant filed a previous UDRP Complaint against the Respondent showing a pattern of activity. This previous complaint was for registration of a similar domain name <mojohost.tech> which was transferred to the Complainant. See Easy Online Solutions, Ltd. d/b/a MojoHost v. Maxx, WIPO Case No. D2020-3267 (January 23, 2021) (ordering transfer of <mojohost.tech> from Respondent to Complainant) (“the Previous UDRP Case”).
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s MOJOHOST mark (which is registered, inter alia, in the United States for web site hosting services since 2012), the dictionary word “the” and the gTLD “.tech”.
Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a dictionary word and a gTLD to a complainant’s mark. The Panel agrees that the addition of the dictionary word “the” and the gTLD “.tech” to the Complainant’s mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s MOJOHOST trademark pursuant to the Policy.
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MOJOHOST registered mark.
As such the Panel holds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorised the use of its MOJOHOST trademark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name.
The Domain Name does not resolve to an active web site, but has been pointed to a web site advertising an email marketing service. As pointed out by the Panel in the Previous UDRP Case between the parties to this Complaint it is not clear from the evidence how the Respondent is connected to that email marketing service or commercially gains from this activity. However, it appears to be confusing diversion of Internet users and does not amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or given any reason why it should be entitled to register a domain name containing the Complainant’s mark which has a reputation for web hosting services.
As such the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy a non-exhaustive list of factors evidencing registration and use in bad faith comprises:
(i) [intentionally omitted]; or
(ii) registration of 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 there is a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) registration of the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that web site or a product or service on that web site or location.
Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered the Domain Name in light of its confusing similarity to the Complainant’s MOJOHOST trademark and aware of the Complainant and its services. The registration of the Domain Name four days after the filing of the Previous UDRP Case by the Complainant against the Respondent indicates a pattern of activity targeting the Complainant sufficient to ground a finding of registration and use in bad faith in this case. The Panel is also of the opinion that given the history of this matter that it is more likely than not that the Respondent registered the Domain Name to disrupt the Complainant’s business in opposition to the interests of the Complainant and to intentionally divert Internet users for commercial gain, albeit that gain is not immediately obvious without further evidence. The fact that the Domain Name currently does not resolve to an active web site does not prevent a finding of bad faith.
As such, the Panel believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith.
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, <themojohost.tech> be transferred to the Complainant.
Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: March 17, 2021
