The Complainant is Linklaters LLP of London, United Kingdom, internally represented.
The Respondent is Stan Chris of New York, New York, United States of America (“United States”).
The disputed domain name <liinklaters.com> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 23, 2019. On January 23, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 24, 2019, 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 January 25, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 14, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 15, 2019.
The Center appointed Luca Barbero as the sole panelist in this matter on February 19, 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.
The Complainant is a Limited Liability Partnership registered in the United Kingdom since February 27, 2007, and is authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority of England and Wales. The Complainant, its affiliates, and predecessors have been providing legal services since 1838, as shown in “About us” section of the website “www.linklaters.com”.
Today, the Complainant and its affiliates provide legal services under the name LINKLATERS from 30 offices in 20 countries worldwide.
The Complainant’s wholly owned subsidiary Linklaters Business Services owns registered trademarks for LINKLATERS in various countries worldwide, including the following:
- United Kingdom trademark registration Nos. 1274996 for LINKLATERS (word mark), filed on October 1, 1986, in class 35; 1315277 for LINKLATERS (word mark), filed on July 9, 1987, in class 42; and 2200536 for LINKLATERS (word mark), filed on June 17, 1999, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41, 42 and 45;
- European Union trademark registration Nos. 165043 for LINKLATERS (word mark), filed on April 1, 1996, in classes 35 and 42; and 1209477 for for LINKLATERS (word mark), filed on June 17, 1999, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41 and 42;
- United States trademark registration No. 2633820 for LINKLATERS (word mark), filed on August 25, 1999, in classes 16, 35, 36, 41 and 42.
The Complainant’s wholly owned subsidiary Linklaters Business Services is also the owner of the domain name <linklaters.com>, which was registered on September 23, 1996, and is used to promote the legal services of the Complainant and its affiliated companies worldwide.
The disputed domain name <liinklaters.com> was registered on December 14, 2018, and is not pointed to an active website.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark LINKLATERS since it comprises the trademark in identical form, save for the double “i”, which is likely to go unnoticed by many readers.
The Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that neither the Respondent nor any third party appear to be making any legitimate commercial or noncommercial use of the disputed domain name, as the corresponding website is not active.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith as the Respondent created on its basis three email addresses almost identical to the ones used by employees of the Complainant or its affiliates, which have been used in a way that has confused people into falsely believing that emails sent from those email addresses were sent by, or on behalf of, the Complainant. The Complainant attaches to the Complaint copy of an exchange of correspondence in which an email address based on the disputed domain name was indeed used to request an invoice from a firm of legal practitioners in Turkey.
The Complainant also states that there is a very significant risk that the disputed domain name will continue to be used in such a manner as to confuse people into thinking that it is controlled by the Complainant or an entity affiliated to the Complainant in the future.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules: “[a] Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights in the trademark LINKLATERS for purposes of standing to file its Complaint under the Policy based on the numerous trademark registrations for LINKLATERS registered in the name of its wholly owned subsidiary Linklaters Business Services, including the ones cited in Section 4 above.
The disputed domain name reproduces the trademark LINKLATERS in its entirety with the addition of the letter “i” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, which can be disregarded being a mere technical requirement for registration.
The Panel finds that the mere addition of one letter “i” to the trademark LINKLATERS does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity of the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s trademark, as the resulting term “liinklaters” is a clear misspelling of the trademark LINKLATERS. As stated in section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), “a domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element”. See also ACCOR v. I&M Raamatupidamise O/Accora Consult OÜ, WIPO Case No. D2006-0650 (<accora.com>), where the panel stated that the addition of “the single letter ‘a’ is an obvious attempt to ‘typosquat’ the Domain Name and is insufficient to avoid confusion”, and Edmunds.com, Inc. v. Digi Real Estate Foundation, WIPO Case No. D2006-1043 (<edmundss.com>), finding that “this is clearly a ‘typosquatting’ case where the disputed domain name is a slight misspelling of a registered trademark to divert [I]nternet traffic”.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has established rights according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case and that the Respondent, by not having submitted a Response, has failed to demonstrate any possible rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy for the following reasons.
According to the evidence on record, there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent and the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to register or use its trademark or the disputed domain name. In addition, there is no evidence that the Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name.
As mentioned above, the disputed domain name has not been pointed to an active website but it has been used for the creation of email addresses used for the sending of emails claiming to come from the Complainant’s employees.
The Panel finds that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the Complainant’s trademark.
See, along these lines, section 2.13.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0: “Panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent”.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven the requirement prescribed by paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires that the Complainant prove that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.
The Panel finds that, in light of the prior registration and use of the Complainant’s trademark LINKLATERS in connection with the Complainant’s legal services and of the virtual identity of the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent very likely registered the disputed domain name having the Complainant’s trademark in mind.
As to the use of the disputed domain name, the Panel notes that it has not been pointed to an active website. However, according to the records, the disputed domain name appears to have been used in connection with the sending of fraudulent email communications pretending that the sender was an employee of the Complainant.
As stated in Section 3.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, “Panels have held that the use of a domain name for purposes other than to host a website may constitute bad faith. Such purposes include sending email, phishing, identity theft, or malware distribution. (…) Many such cases involve the respondent’s use of the domain name to send deceptive emails, e.g., to obtain sensitive or confidential personal information from prospective job applicants, or to solicit payment of fraudulent invoices by the complainant’s actual or prospective customers”.
In view of the circumstances of the case and since the Respondent has failed to file a Response and submit counter-allegations to rebut the Complainant’s contentions, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name amounts to bad faith.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has also proven the requirement prescribed by paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
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 <liinklaters.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Luca Barbero
Sole Panelist
Date: March 6, 2019