GustoMSC Resources B.V. v. ADRIAN Richie
Claim Number: FA2107001954382
Complainant is GustoMSC Resources B.V. (“Complainant”), represented by Thomas L. Warden of Conley Rose, P.C., Texas, USA. Respondent is ADRIAN Richie (“Respondent”), Switzerland.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <gustomcs.com>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with NameSilo, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 8, 2021; the Forum received payment on July 8, 2021.
On July 9, 2021, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <gustomcs.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On July 9, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 29, 2021 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@gustomcs.com. Also on July 9, 2021, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On August 2, 2021 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of the mark GUSTO MSC, registered, inter alia, in the USA for oil and gas drilling and production equipment and services since 2016.
The Domain Name registered in 2021 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark transposing the last two letters ‘s’ and ‘c’ and adding the gTLD “.com” none of which prevents the said confusing similarity.
The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorized by the Complainant.
The Domain Name does not resolve to any web site but has been used for a fraudulent e mail scheme with the object of distributing malware for commercial gain using the Complainant’s mark spelt correctly, its logo and the name of one of its employees. This cannot be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. It is registration and use in bad faith. Typosquatting per se is bad faith registration and use.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the mark GUSTO MSC, registered, inter alia, in the USA for oil and gas drilling and production equipment and services since 2016.
The Domain Name registered in 2021 does not resolve to a web site but has been used in a fraudulent e mail scheme using the Complainant’s mark spelt correctly, its logo and the name of one of its employees to distribute malware for commercial gain.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The Domain Name consist of a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant's GUSTO MSC mark (which is registered in the USA for oil and gas drilling and production equipment and services since 2016) transposing the last two letters ‘s’ and ‘c’ and adding the gTLD “.com”.
The Panel agrees that visually similar misspellings of a Complainant’s mark in a domain name do not prevent confusing similarity between that domain name and the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy. See Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015) (stating, “Where a respondent has created a domain name in an effort to visually deceive Internet users via a simple misspelling (and when such misspellings are visually similar to the mark), a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is appropriate.”). As such transposing a letter ‘s’ for a letter ‘c’ does not prevent the Domain Name being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark under the Policy.
The gTLD “.com” does not serve to distinguish a domain name from a complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorized the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
The Domain Name has been used in a fraudulent phishing attempt using the Complainant’s mark spelt correctly, the Complainant’s logo and the name of one of the Complainant’s employees. This is deceptive and confusing and amounts to passing off. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (finding that ‘Passing off in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use’.)
Typosquatting is also an indication of a lack of rights or a legitimate interests. See Chegg Inc. v. yang qijin, FA1503001610050 (Forum Apr. 23, 2015) (“Users might mistakenly reach Respondent’s resolving website by misspelling Complainant’s mark. Taking advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors, known as typosquatting, demonstrates a respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The use of the Complainant’s name spelt correctly, its logo and the name of one of its employees in the fraudulent phishing activity shows that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant, its rights, business and services.
Impersonating a complainant by use of a complainant’s mark in a fraudulent phishing attempt is disruptive and evinces bad faith registration and use. See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green/ Whois Agent/Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding that respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to send fraudulent e mails constituted bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iii).).
Typosquatting is also an indication of a lack of rights or a legitimate interests. See Chegg Inc. v. yang qijin, FA1503001610050 (Forum Apr. 23, 2015) (“Users might mistakenly reach Respondent’s resolving website by misspelling Complainant’s mark. Taking advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors, known as typosquatting, demonstrates a respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under para 4(b)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <gustomcs.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: August 2, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page