Qatar Investment Authority v. Annabel Potts
Claim Number: FA2204001992386
Complainant is Qatar Investment Authority (“Complainant”), represented by Ryan C. Compton of DLA Piper LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Annabel Potts (“Respondent”), Nigeria.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <qataarinvestmentauthority.com>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc..
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 April 14, 2022; the Forum received payment on April 14, 2022.
On April 18, 2022, OwnRegistrar, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <qataarinvestmentauthority.com> Domain Name is registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. OwnRegistrar, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the OwnRegistrar, Inc. 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 April 18, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 9, 2022 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@qataarinvestmentauthority.com. Also on April 18, 2022, 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 May 16, 2022 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 a number of registered trademarks, inter alia in the UK and EU including the word mark QATAR INVESTMENT AUTHORITY and other elements and owns common law rights in that word mark with first use recorded as 2005. It uses the acronym QIA and has a web site at qia.qa.
The Domain Name registered in 2022 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s QATAR INVESTMENT AUTHORITY mark save that an additional letter ‘a’ has been added to the ‘qatar’ element of the domain name to become ‘qaatarinvestmentauthority’.
The Respondent has no 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 an active site but has been used for a e mail employment phishing scheme using the Complainant’s QATAR INVESTMENT AUTHORITY mark spelt correctly and the Complainant’s QIA acronym and web site URL qia.qa to purport to be emanating from a member of the board of the Complainant. 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 causing confusion in actual knowledge of the rights of the Complainant.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of a number of registered trademarks, inter alia in the UK and EU including the word mark QATAR INVESTMENT AUTHORITY with other elements and owns common law rights in that word mark. It uses the acronym QIA and has a web site at qia.qa.
The Domain Name registered in 2022 has been used for an employment phishing scheme which uses the Complainant’s QATAR INVESTMENT AUTHORITY mark, its QIA acronym and its URL qia.qa to purport to emanate from a member of the board of the Complainant.
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 QATAR INVESTMENT AUTHORITY mark (in which the Complainant owns common law rights for financial services with first use recorded since 2005) merely adding another letter ‘a’.
Adding a single letter to a complainant’s mark does not prevent confusing similarity between that mark and a domain name. See LodgeWorks Partners, L.P. v. Isaac Goldstein / POSTE RESTANTE, FA 1717300 (Forum Apr. 5, 2017) (“The Panel agrees; Respondent’s <archerhotels.com> is confusingly similar to complainant’s ARCHER HOTEL mark.”). The Panel finds that adding the single letter ‘a’ does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark.
The gTLD “.com” does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the 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 TLD 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 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. 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 and its QIA acronym and qia.qa URL to suggest it was emanating from a member of the board of the Complainant. This is deceptive and confusing. 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’.).
The Domain Name also appears to be a typosquatting registration differing only by one letter from the Complainant’s common law mark QATAR INVESTMENT AUTHORITY. 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
Impersonating a complainant by use of a sign confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark in a domain name 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).).
The use of the Complainant’s mark spelt correctly and its QIA acronym and its URL qia.qa in the Respondent’s fraudulent phishing e mail scheme in this case shows that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant, its rights, business and services.
The Domain Name seeks to take advantage of the situation where Internet users may guess a domain name and make a typographical error. Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use and disruption of the Complainant’s business. See Diners Club int'l Ltd. v. Domain Admin ****** It's all in the name ******, FA 156839 (Forum June 23, 2003) (registering a domain name in the hope that Internet users will mistype the Complainant’s mark and be taken to the Respondent’s site is registration and use in bad faith). Typosquatting also indicates the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant and its rights. See InfoSpace, Inc. v. Greiner, FA 227653 (Forum Mar. 8, 2004) (“Respondent’s domain name is a simple and popular variation of a trademark commonly used by typosquatters …Such a domain name evidences actual knowledge of the underlying mark prior to the registration of the domain name, and as Respondent failed to submit any evidence to counter this inferrence [sic], Respondent’s actions evidence bad faith registration of the disputed domain name.”).
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 paragraph 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 <qataarinvestmentauthority.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: May 18, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page