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

Exiros.AR S.A. v. ranjain candy

Case No. D2021-2916

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Exiros.AR S.A., Argentina, represented by Mitrani, Caballero & Ruiz Moreno Abogados, Argentina.

The Respondent is ranjain candy, United States of America (“United States” or “US”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <exiors.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 September 3, 2021. On September 6, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 6, 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 September 30, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 20, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 29, 2021.

The Center appointed Alistair Payne as the sole panelist in this matter on November 25, 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 is the IP owing entity of the “Exiros” group operated by the international holding company Exiros B.V. with its headquarters in Uruguay and operations worldwide, including in North America. The Exiros group provides procurement solutions for various businesses including the Tenaris and Ternium, global steel supply and manufacturing businesses. It owns an extensive portfolio of trade mark registrations for the EXIROS mark including United States trade mark registration No. 2751042 registered on August 12, 2003. It also owns a portfolio of domain names including the EXIROS mark with its main website being at “www.exiros.com”.

The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on July 22, 2021 and does not resolve to an active website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant submits that it owns registered trade mark rights for the EXIROS mark as noted above. It asserts that the disputed domain name wholly incorporates its mark but is an example of typosquatting in that it inverts the letters “r” and “o”. On this basis, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its EXIROS mark.

The Complainant submits that neither it nor the Exiros Group has ever authorised or permitted the Respondent to use its EXIROS mark and that it has no relationship of any kind with the Respondent. It says that the Respondent is not using and has not demonstrated an intent to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. It notes in this regard that the EXIROS name is a highly distinctive coined term that has been widely used internationally, including online, in relation to the Exiros Group’s business and it is therefore highly unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s mark and business when it registered the disputed domain name which appears to be a typosquatted version of it. In fact, says the Complainant, the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name but is rather using it to misappropriate the Complainant’s mark and is using it in bad faith with the purpose of obtaining money fraudulently.

According to the Complainant, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the purpose of intercepting mail flows and sending emails to the Complainant’s customers from email accounts in the format “@exiors.com” in order to obtain payment for fake invoices. The Complainant has submitted evidence of an example of these emails in July 2021 in which the Respondent intercepted the Complainant’s communication with its customer and ands by impersonating the Complainant asked the customer to delay payment of a pending invoice until “new and updated” banking information was provided. The Respondent subsequently issued the invoice in the name of “Exiros B.V. Sucursal Uruguay” and included the EXIROS trade mark but included its own banking information. It further says that the Respondent purposefully misspelt the Complainant’s EXIROS mark in the disputed domain name with a view to confusing Internet users and deceiving email recipients and that this amounts to a form of “spoofing”. Further, in relation to bad faith registration and use, the Complainant says that the Respondent’s registration address details are false and it says that this address does not exist which is a further example of the Respondent’s illegitimate conduct.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns United States trade mark registration No. 2751042 registered on August 12, 2003, for the EXIROS mark. The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the EXIROS mark but inverts the letters “r” and “o”. This is an example of typosquatting and the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s EXIROS trademark and that the Complaint succeeds under this element of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has submitted that neither it nor the Exiros Group has ever authorised or permitted the Respondent to use its EXIROS mark and that it has no relationship of any kind with the Respondent. It has asserted that the Respondent is not using and has not demonstrated an intent to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Further, the Complainant has submitted that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name but is rather using it to misappropriate the Complainant’s mark and is using it in bad faith with the purpose of obtaining money fraudulently.

In this regard, the Complainant has submitted evidence, as further described under Part C below, that the Respondent has intercepted email between the Complainant and its customers and has used email addresses based on the disputed domain name to misrepresent itself as the Complainant for the purpose of fraudulently obtaining payment of at least one of the Complainant’s invoices into its own bank account. This is clearly not legitimate conduct and is not consistent with the Respondent having rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that it has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name which case has not been rebutted by the Respondent. As a result, the Panel finds that the Complaint also succeeds under this element of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The disputed domain name was only registered in July 22, 2021. The EXIROS name and mark is a highly distinctive coined term that has been widely used internationally, including in the United States, for many years prior to this by the Complainant in relation to the Exiros Group’s various businesses. It has also been used online by the Complainant from its domain names, in particular at <exiros.com>. It is therefore highly unlikely that the United States based Respondent could have been unaware of the Complainant’s mark and business when it registered the disputed domain name which in any event appears to be a typosquatted version of the Complainant’s EXIROS mark.

The evidence submitted by the Complainant supports its assertion that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the purpose of intercepting mail flows and sending emails to the Complainant’s customers from email accounts in the format “@exiors.com” in order to obtain payment for fake invoices. The Complainant has provided in evidence an example of emails in July 2021, in which the Respondent intercepted the Complainant’s communication with its customer and by impersonating the Complainant asked the customer to delay payment of a pending invoice until “new and updated” banking information was provided. The Respondent subsequently issued the invoice in the name of “Exiros B.V. Sucursal Uruguay” and included the EXIROS trade mark, but with its own banking information. This is plainly an example of the Respondent using email addresses at the disputed domain name to obtain funds fraudulently from the Complainant’s customers and amounts to use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. Based on the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the Respondent’s apparent use of false address details when it registered the disputed domain name only serves to confirm the Panel’s view of the Respondent’s bad faith.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith and that the Complaint succeeds under this element 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 <exiors.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Alistair Payne
Sole Panelist
Date: December 2, 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/