About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Autodesk, Inc. v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / 嫒嫒 郝

Case No. D2021-0268

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Autodesk, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Donahue Fitzgerald, United States.

The Respondent is Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org, United States / 嫒嫒 郝, United Arab Emirates.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <autndesk.com> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 29, 2021. On January 29, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 29, 2021, 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 February 5, 2021 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 February 6, 2021.

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 February 19, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 11, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 13, 2021.

The Center appointed Jacob (Changjie) Chen as the sole panelist in this matter on April 6, 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, Autodesk, Inc, incorporated in the United States, is a design software and services company, offering customers productive business solutions through technology products and services. The Complainant claims that there are over 9,000,000 users of Autodesk’s products nowadays.

The Complainant owns rights upon numerous worldwide registrations of AUTODESK trademark, including No.1316772 the United States trademark, registered on January 29, 1985 and No.307891 the Chinese trademark, registered on February 10, 1988. The Complainant owns domain names incorporating its AUTODESK trademark, including <autodesk.com>, registered on August 3, 1989.

According to the information disclosed by the Registrar, the Respondent is 嫒嫒 郝, located in United Arab Emirates.

The disputed domain name is <autndesk.com>, registered on September 13, 2020. The disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying pornographic content with advertisements related to gambling websites.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its AUTODESK trademark. The replacement of the fourth letter “o” with the letter “n” is insufficient to differentiate the similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s AUTODESK trademark.

The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to use its AUTODESK trademark or registering any domain name incorporating the AUTODESK trademark. Besides, the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide or legitimate offering of goods. Moreover, there is no evidence showing that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name.

The Complainant finally contends that the disputed 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

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant owns rights upon numerous worldwide registrations of AUTODESK trademark, which far predate the registration date of the disputed domain name (September 13, 2020). The Complainant has successfully established its rights upon AUTODESK trademark.

It is well established that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.com” as a standard registration requirement is disregarded in the assessment of the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s AUTODESK trademark.

The disputed domain name <autndesk.com> incorporates the Complainant’s AUTODESK trademark with the fourth letter “o” replaced by the letter “n”. However, the Panel finds that “autndesk” is a misspelling of the Complainant’s AUTODESK trademark. The substitution of “o” with “n” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the AUTODESK trademark and the disputed domain name. See section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s AUTODESK trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The burden of production is hence shifted to the Respondent to rebut the Complainant’s contentions. In this case, the Respondent’s failure to submit a response to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy according to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. See Construction Skills Certification Scheme Limited v. Mara Figueira, WIPO Case No. D2010-0947.

According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the Respondent directs the disputed domain name to a website showing pornographic content and advertisement links in relation to gambling services. The Panel views that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name cannot be considered as making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name nor using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Further, there is no evidence on record showing that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name.

Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that the disputed domain name was registered on September 13, 2020, far later than the registration date of the Complainant’s AUTODESK trademark. Given the reputation of the Complainant and its AUTODESK trademark, the Panel holds that the Respondent should have had awareness of the Complainant’s trademark and/or business at the time of registering the disputed domain name, because a simple Internet search with key word “autodesk” shows all top search results connecting to the Complainant. Thus, without any rights or legitimate interests, the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name is indicative of bad faith.

The Panel observes that the disputed domain name resolves to a website showing pornographic content. The Panel views that the Respondent’s purpose of using the disputed domain name is to attract Internet users who are not looking for a pornographic website but are instead looking for products and/or services associated with the Complainant and its AUTODESK trademark. Therefore, the Panel holds that by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, by directing Internet users to its website as described under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See Motorola, Inc. v. NewGate Internet, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0079.

For the reasons above, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being 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 disputed domain name <autndesk.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Jacob (Changjie) Chen
Sole Panelist
Date: April 20, 2021

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/