Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The Complainant is the owner of mark ‘COGNIZANT’ as shown in the supporting document with the United States Patent and Trade Mark office. The registration covers a range of goods and services in Int.: Class 42 for computer software consulting services which was registered on September 4, 2001 with the first use since 1994. The <cognizant.ltd> (the "Domain Name") is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's rights in the ‘COGNIZANT’ name and mark because the Domain Name wholly incorporates the Complainant's ‘COGNIZANT’ mark. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to register or use its well-known ‘COGNIZANT’ mark or any confusingly similar sign as part of any business or other activities including in any domain name. The Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the Domain Name. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and has never been commonly known by the Domain Name. It is the Complainant's submission that they are merely seeking, and have sought, to exploit the ‘COGNIZANT’ name and mark in which the Complainant has rights to create a commercial gain for itself on the internet. It must be fully aware that the ‘COGNIZANT’ name and mark is a well-known global brand and so the Respondent cannot claim that its conduct amounts to bona fide commercial or fair use sufficient to legitimize any right or interest in the Domain Name. The Respondent has used the Domain Name to divert traffic to unconnected websites and to utilize the reputation of the Complainant's ‘COGNIZANT’ brand to generate business and redirect to those sites. This use will undoubtedly cause damage to the reputation of the Complainant as this is likely to confuse users and create a connection between ‘COGNIZANT’ and the linked websites that does not exist, causing damage to the Complainant's reputation. The Domain Name does not contain any reference setting out the identity of the Respondent or indicating that it is otherwise associated in any way with the name ‘COGNIZANT’. In the event that the Respondent has adopted a domain name identical to the well-known ‘COGNIZANT’ name and trade mark in other instances, it can only have done so to create a commercial advantage for itself. The Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. By using the Domain Name, the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's marks as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent's website. The Respondent's intention in acquiring the Domain Name can only be to take unfair advantage of the substantial global reputation in the ‘COGNIZANT’ name and mark with a view to attracting for itself a commercial gain. Given the Complainant's rights and goodwill in the ‘COGNIZANT’ mark, the Respondent must at all material times have been fully aware of this reputation and of its intention to take unfair advantage of it. The Complainant has proved by documentary evidences that they are the registered owner of the mark ‘COGNIZANT’. As noted, the disputed domain name <cognizant.ltd> composes “cognizant” and “.ltd”. Thus the word “cognizant” in disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s registered mark ‘COGNIZANT’. The “.ltd” in disputed domain name is a generic code top-level domain name (gTLD) suffix. It is non-distinctive and is incapable of differentiating the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s registered trademark. Based on the fact that ‘COGNIZANT’ being a registered mark of the Complainant, the Examiner determines that URS 1.2.6.1(i) covers the domain name at issue in this Complaint.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The Complainant owns the mark ‘COGNIZANT’. The Complainant’s adoption and first use of the registered trademark is for quite some decades. In such case, the burden lies on the Respondent to prove that he/she has legitimate rights and/or interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is in default and has not filed any response. Although, the Complainant is not entitled to relief simply by default of the Respondent to submit a Response, the Examiner can however and does draw evidentiary inferences from the failure of the Respondent to respond. In view of the above, the Complainant has established a prima facie case of lack of rights and legitimate interest. Based on the record, the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Hence, the Examiner determines that URS 1.2.6.2 covers the domain name at issue in this Complaint and that the Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

It is the specific case of the Complainant that the Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any manner and never authorized the Respondent to register or use any domain name incorporating ‘COGNIZANT’. The Respondent has not responded in spite of the notice of complaint and notice of default under this URS determination process. It is well established that the registration and use of the disputed domain name must involve malafides where the registration and use of it was continues to be made in full knowledge of the Complainant’s prior rights in the ‘COGNIZANT’ registered trademark and in circumstances where the registrant did not seek permission from the Complainant, as the owner of trademark, for such registration and use. Thus the Panel Examiner comes to an irresistible determination that (i) the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s ‘COGNIZANT’ mark; (ii) the Respondent’s name does not correspond to the disputed domain name; (iii) the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its trademark when it registered the disputed the domain name; (iv) there is no indication of any authorization to use the Complainant’s mark. Hence, it is lawful to conclude that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. Thus the Examiner determines that URS 1.2.6.3 (a) and (d) covers the domain name at issue in this Complaint and the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

After reviewing the parties submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

1. cognizant.ltd