WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Easyparapharmacie v. Domain Privacy, Above.com Domain Privacy

Case No. D2021-3075

1. The Parties

Complainant is Easyparapharmacie, France, represented by IP Twins, France.

Respondent is Domain Privacy, Above.com Domain Privacy, Australia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

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

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 17, 2021. On September 17, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 20, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the disputed domain name.

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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 22, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 12, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on October 13, 2021.

The Center appointed Michael A. Albert as the sole panelist in this matter on October 20, 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

Complainant is Easyparapharmacie. Complainant is a French company founded in 2007 and specialized in the online sale and distribution of parapharmaceutical products, as well cosmetics and veterinary goods.

Complainant owns several trademark registrations worldwide for the mark EASYPARAPHARMACIE. In particular, Complainant is the owner of the following trademarks registered well before the registration of the disputed domain name:

- International trademark EASYPARAPHARMACIE, No. 1215294, registered on May 5, 2014, and designating goods and services in international classes 3, 5, 35 and 44;
- French trademark EASYPARAPHARMACIE, No. 3536953, registered on November 9, 2007, renewed, and designating goods in international classes 3 and 5.

Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 13, 2021. According to the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolves to an active website displaying pop-ups indicating a security threat and potentially downloaded malware onto the user’s device.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s EASYPARAPHARMACIE mark. The only difference between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s mark is that the disputed domain swaps the order of the first “a” and “s” in “easyparapharmacie”. This minor difference in spelling could be easily overlooked or considered a “typo” by Internet users.

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has never been licensed or authorized or otherwise permitted to use Complainant’s mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.

Complainant alleges that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name resolves to an active website displaying pop-ups indicating a security threat and potentially downloaded malware onto the user’s device.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

The Panel finds this to be a clear case of “typosquatting” in which Respondent has registered a misspelling of a renowned mark without legitimate rights or interests and in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name is identical in spelling, meaning, and sound to Complainant’s well-established trademark, but for an easily-overlooked typographical variation, namely reversing the first “a” and “s”. It is well established that such minor typographical variations or misspellings do not avoid a finding of confusing similarity between a mark and a corresponding domain name. Prior UDRP panels have also found a difference of only one letter between a disputed domain name and a complainant’s mark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See, e.g., Express Scripts, Inc. v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Domaindeals, Domain Administrator, WIPO Case No. D2008-1302 (<expresscripts.com> omission of “s” constitutes typosquatting which is by definition evidence of a confusingly similar domain name); Electronic Arts Inc. v. John Zuccarini, WIPO Case No. D2003-0141 (<simscity.com> “the domain name differs from [SIMCITY] trademark in only one letter; this small difference establishes the confusingly similarity with [the complainant’s trademark]”). See also section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Respondent is not known by Complainant’s mark. Complainant confirms that Respondent does not have license, permission, or authorization to use Complainant’s mark. There is no evidence demonstrating any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name by Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, coupled with Complainant’s contentions, are indicative that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Given the long use and renown of Complainant’s EASYPARAPHARMACIE marks, and the similarity between the mark and the disputed domain name, it is highly implausible that Respondent was not aware of the EASYPARAPHARMACIE mark at the time Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name. Such knowledge is sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name was registered by Respondent in bad faith. See Caesars World, Inc. v. Forum LLC, WIPO Case No. D2005-0517 (finding bad faith where Respondent registered the domain name <caesarspalacepoker.com> after it knew or should have known about Complainant’s trademarks).

The use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a website displaying pop-ups indicating a security threat and potentially downloaded malware, and pay-per-click links, is evidence of bad faith use as described under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied 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 <esayparapharmacie.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Michael A. Albert
Sole Panelist
Date: November 3, 2021