TrueCar, Inc. v. Privacy.co.com / Privacy.co.com, Inc Privacy ID# 1087474
Claim Number: FA1804001781762
Complainant is TrueCar, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Alyssa M. Worsham of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, California, USA. Respondent is Privacy.co.com / Privacy.co.com, Inc Privacy ID# 1087474 (“Respondent”), Wyoming, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <trueccar.com>, registered with Sea Wasp, LLC.
The undersigned certifies he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 13, 2018; the Forum received payment on April 13, 2018.
On April 16, 2018, Sea Wasp, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <trueccar.com> domain name is registered with Sea Wasp, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Sea Wasp, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Sea Wasp, 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 April 18, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 8, 2018 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@trueccar.com. Also on April 18, 2018, 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 10, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, 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
Trademark/Service Mark Information: UDRP Rule 3(b)(viii).
TrueCar registered its TRUECAR marks (“TRUECAR Marks”) the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS
This Complaint is based on the following factual and legal grounds: UDRP Rule 3(b)(ix).
1. TrueCar’s Trademark
i. Complainant has used the TRUECAR Marks since at least as early as 2008 to promote its online business providing automobile pricing information and a network of thousands of certified dealers.
ii. Since Complainant began using the TRUECAR Marks in 2008, TrueCar’s revenues have increased by a multiple of over 30.
iii. TrueCar frequently displays its marks, which appear throughout the TrueCar website. Additionally, the TRUECAR Marks are used by other entities with which TrueCar has marketing and endorsement relationships.
iv. TrueCar runs its business via the TrueCar website hosted at <truecar.com>. The website is characterized by a white background with the TRUECAR Mark prominently displayed throughout the site and appearing in stark contrast in either navy or white text against a correspondingly contrasting background. This TRUECAR-branded website enjoys significant web traffic, with more than 7.3 million unique visitors in the fourth quarter of 2017.
v. Complainant also actively advertises its TRUECAR brand and its related offerings online and on major broadcast television and radio networks, including Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, iHeartMedia and WestwoodOne. Since its inception, Complainant has spent several hundred million dollars on promotion of the TRUECAR name and services.
vi. Complainant has been recognized in the press and media for its technology and services provided to consumers and car dealerships, including articles from the New York Times, L.A. Biz, AutoRemarketing, Forbes, Reuters, Fortune and CNBC. Complainant notes that a lot of media publicity occurred prior to when the Infringing Domain Name was first registered.
vii. To better protect the goodwill and fame of its TRUECAR Marks, Complainant has obtained registrations for the marks in the United States and internationally to protect the TRUECAR Marks in connection with Complainant’s business.
2. Registration and Use of the Infringing Domain Name
i. Respondent registered the Infringing Domain Name long after TrueCar developed rights in its TRUECAR Marks. The <trueccar.com> domain was first registered on approximately November 8, 2011.
ii. The Infringing Domain Name <trueccar.com> resolves to a website that clearly attempts to exploit the goodwill associated with the TRUECAR Marks. The website at the Infringing Domain Name <trueccar.com> mimics the content as well as the look-and-feel of the actual TrueCar website so that even consumers familiar with Complainant and its website are led to believe that the copycat site is affiliated with TrueCar, particularly given the clearly identical purpose of the site to provide data and information regarding automobile pricing. True and accurate screenshots of the website hosted at <trueccar.com> as it appeared on April 12, 2018 are attached. See also Edmunds.com, Inc. v. Digi Real Estate Foundation, Case No. D2006-1043 (WIPO October 6, 2006) (stating “the content of a website (whether it is similar or different from the business of a trademark owner) is relevant in the finding of bad faith use…because where a potential visitor, after typing in a confusingly similar domain name, reaches the Respondent’s website offering similar contents, there is an implied act of unfair competition (deception of the consumer).”).
3. The Infringing Domain Name is Confusingly Similar to the TRUECAR Marks
i. The <trueccar.com> domain is identical to the TRUECAR Marks and the <truecar.com> domain name, apart from the inclusion of an additional “C” in the word “CAR”, and is likely to cause consumer confusion. See Humana Inc. v. Cayman Trademark Trust, Case No. D2006-0073 (WIPO March 7, 2006) (finding “typosquatting” and ordering transfer of the disputed domain name that differed from the complainant’s mark by just one letter and stating “[t]his repeated consonant does not significantly affect the appearance or pronunciation of the domain name…and creates a virtually identical and/or confusingly similar mark to the Complainant’s trade-mark”); Edmunds.com, Inc., Case No. D2006-1043 (finding a clear likelihood of confusion based on a visual and phonetic comparison between the trademark and the domain name where the disputed domain name <edmundss.com> was a slight misspelling of the registered trademark EDMUND’s). In addition to the confusion caused by Respondent’s use of the Infringing Domain Name, Respondent’s website could also tarnish TrueCar’s good name and its respected TRUECAR Marks.
ii. Because the Infringing Domain Name is confusingly similar to the TRUECAR Marks, TrueCar satisfies ICANN Policy ¶4(a)(i).
4. Respondent Has No Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Infringing Domain Name
i. Respondent is not known by the name TRUECAR and has not acquired any trademark rights in the term TRUECAR. See Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, Case No. FA 96209 (Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (respondent does not have rights in domain name incorporating another’s mark when respondent is not known by that mark); Edmunds.com, Inc., Case No. D2006-1043 (finding ICANN Policy ¶4(a)(ii) met where the disputed domain name was identical to the complainant’s mark but for one letter and respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name; the principal element of the disputed domain name was in fact the Complainant’s name, trademark and domain name; and it was evident that respondent was unfairly capitalizing on the reputation and goodwill established by complainant).
ii. TrueCar has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the TRUECAR Marks, or any confusingly similar mark, or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the marks or a term confusingly similar to the TRUECAR Marks. See Telstra Corp. Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, Case No. D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 13, 2000) (respondent had no rights or legitimate interests to use domain name because respondent was not licensed or otherwise permitted to use complainant’s trademark); Alta-Vista Company v. Jean-Daniel Gamache, Case No. FA 95249 (Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (respondent was not licensed to use complainant’s mark and therefore had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name).
iii. Respondent’s use of the TRUECAR Marks in the Infringing Domain Name is not nominative and can easily be avoided—Respondent does not need to make use of the TRUECAR name in its own domain in order to provide automobile pricing information or to identify Respondent’s website. See Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Hotel Partners of Richmond, Case No. D2003-0222 (WIPO May 14, 2003) (finding that the use of the complainant’s HOLIDAY INN mark in the domain name <holidayinnhotelreservations.com> was not nominative fair use because it was not an unavoidable and necessary use of a mark to identify respondent’s services); Microsoft Corporation v. Global Net 2000, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000- 0554 (finding that respondent’s use of the disputed domain names with a single letter difference from a registered trademark is the obverse of a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name).
iv. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Infringing Domain Name under ICANN Policy ¶4(a)(ii) because Respondent has no affiliation with TrueCar and has developed no rights in the TRUECAR Marks.
5. Registration and Use of the Infringing Domain Name in Bad Faith
i. Respondent registered the Infringing Domain Name after Complainant first adopted and began using the TRUECAR Marks. Furthermore, Respondent clearly had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TRUECAR Mark when Respondent registered the Infringing Domain Name, as Respondent had no other reason to register a domain name that is nearly identical to Complainant’s TRUECAR Marks (but for the inclusion of an additional “C” in the word “CAR”) apart from aiming to exploit the TRUECAR brand. In fact, Respondent’s knowledge of Complainant is apparent from the content of its website itself whereComplainant’s own TRUECAR Mark is prominently displayed at the upper right of the page as follows:
POWERED BY
ii. This use of Complainant’s TRUECAR Mark is undeniably intentional, particularly given that it displays the exact design of the TRUECAR Mark as displayed on the Complainant’s own site, i.e. the word “TRUE” in bold and capital navy letters preceding the word “Car” also appearing in navy though with just the “C” capitalized, followed immediately by the small circled “R” (®) trademark symbol positioned at the bottom of the “r” in the word “Car”. Moreover, upon clicking on this TRUECAR Mark displayed on Respondent’s website, visitors are actually redirected via an imbedded hyperlink to Complainant’s own website available at <truecar.com>. Finally, Complainant’s TRUECAR Mark also appears at the bottom right of Respondent’s site, along with fine print incorporating various references to TrueCar and/or TrueCar, Inc., e.g. the average estimated savings presented by TrueCar Certified dealers, terms of service, a privacy policy, and an all rights reserved notice.
iii. Notably, Internet users visiting Respondent’s site (likely as a result of a typo when attempting to enter Complainant’s own domain name at <truecar.com>) are actually redirected to another URL incorporating Complainant’s exact TRUECAR Mark (without the inclusion of an extra “C” in the word “CAR”), namely: <https://samsclub.truecar.com/samsclub- landing.html?referrer_id=ZSAM000023250&Srtid=affiliate&SrcID=cj&CmID=4 067797&CrID=7qlkoquf3lajpghbnomy4qfq0&cvosrc=affiliate.cj.4067797- 7qlkoquf3lajpghbnomy4qfq0>
iv. Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark in its URL further demonstrates that Respondent’s registration of the domain name <trueccar.com> cannot even remotely be construed as a mere coincidence and constitutes as bad faith. See Humana, Case No. D2006-0073 (ordering transfer of a domain name that differed from the Complainant’s mark by just one letter and stating “by registering a visually and phonetically similar domain name to the Complainant’s trade-mark that is a misspelling of that mark, the Respondent is attempting to take advantage of the Complainant’s reputation by capturing traffic from Internet users looking for the Complainant, but misspelling its name. This form of “typosquatting” is considered bad faith within the meaning of the Policy”).
v. In addition, Respondent’s attempt to take advantage of the prestige associated with the brand of another company is also evidenced by the above cited URL, wherein Respondent has likewise incorporated a reference to Sam’s Club. The Sam’s Club trademark and logo design are also plainly visible on the homepage of Respondent’s site. While it is unclear whether Respondent has any legitimate affiliation with Sam’s Club, given its unauthorized and prominent use of Complainant’s TRUECAR Marks, this parallel use of the Sam’s Club word mark and logo design certainly raises similar doubts.
vi. Moreover, prominently displayed in the middle of Respondent’s site is a prompt for visitors to enter their name, phone number, and zip code or, in the alternative, sign-up and/or sign-in to an existing “Samsclub.com account” in order to receive “Special Pricing and Benefits for Sam’s Club Members”. Thus, Respondent clearly uses the Infringing Domain Name <trueccar.com> to lure internet users to Respondent’s own website that is branded with the TRUECAR Marks. Internet users who are directed to this site are likely to believe that they have successfully accessed a website related to TrueCar and its services. This type of use of a domain name has been recognized as bad faith use in violation of ICANN Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See Fossil, Inc. v. wwwfossil-watch.org c/o Hostmaster, Case No. FA 335513 (Forum Nov. 9, 2004) (finding bad faith where respondent attempted to profit from the fame of complainant’s trademark by attracting internet traffic to his website); see also Twitter v. Domain Admin, Case No. FA1503001607451 (Forum April 2, 2015) (bad faith shown by registrant’s scheme to divert web traffic from mark owner to respondent’s own website “to exploit visitors either by passing off goods, or infecting the visitor’s computer with malware or otherwise”).
vii. Collectively, these actions undertaken by Respondent demonstrate that Respondent’s registration of the Infringing Domain Name was not the result of mere coincidence, but instead a deliberate decision to extort value from the TRUECAR brand and to take advantage of the brand recognition and goodwill associated with the TRUECAR Marks. Registration of a domain name for such a purpose constitutes bad faith. See Ticketmaster Corp. v. Spider Web Design, Inc., Case No. D2000-1551 (WIPO Feb. 4, 2001) (“actual or constructive knowledge of [c]omplainant’s rights in [t]rademark is a factor supporting bad faith”); see also Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., Case No. D2000-l221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that respondent’s domain names to be “so obviously connected” to the complainant that “use or registration by anyone other than complainants suggests ‘opportunistic bad faith’”).
viii. Thus, Respondent’s bad faith intent in registering the Infringing Domain Name is conclusively established by: 1) Respondent’s actual knowledge of TrueCar’s prior rights in, and the fame of, the TRUECAR Marks; 2) Respondent’s attempt to take advantage of the goodwill in the TRUECAR Marks by registering domain name comprised of terms that are nearly identical and therefore confusingly similar to the TRUECAR Marks; and 3) Respondent’s use of the Infringing Domain Name to exploit, to compete with and to disrupt TrueCar’s business by promoting its own website with the TRUECAR Marks. The registration and use of the Infringing Domain Name constitutes bad faith under ICANN Policy ¶4(a)(iii).
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
(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.
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 Complainant prove the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:
(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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Complainant claims rights in the TRUE CAR mark to promote its products and services registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g, Reg. No. 3,759,175, registered Mar. 9, 2010). Registration with a governmental trademark agency, such as the USPTO, is sufficient to prove Policy ¶4(a)(i) rights in a mark. See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Samy Yosef / Express Transporting, FA 1738124 (Forum July 28, 2017) (finding that registration with the USPTO was sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the HOME DEPOT mark). Complainant established rights in the TRUE CAR mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i).
Complainant claims Respondent’s <trueccar.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it merely adds the single letter “c” between the terms “true” and “car” and appends the gTLD “.com.” The addition of a single letter is not normally sufficient to prevent a finding of confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark (especially if it is not in the initial position). A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs. See Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (“The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant’s mark does not remove the respondent’s domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation to the complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i).”); see also Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (“The mere addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark.”). Respondent’s <trueccar.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(i) satisfied.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(a)(ii). Then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it has rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Complainant claims Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because (i) Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and (ii) Complainant has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use its TRUE CAR mark in any fashion. Absent contradicting evidence in the record that a respondent was authorized to use a complainant’s mark in a domain name, the Panel may rely upon Complainant’s uncontroverted claims (assuming they are reasonable on their face, which these are). Absent information in the record to the contrary (and there is none in this case), the WHOIS information and common sense allow the Panel to decide Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name), see State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(ii)). The WHOIS information of record for the <trueccar.com> domain name lists “Privacy.co.com, Inc Privacy ID# 1087474” as the registrant. There is no obvious relationship to the disputed domain name. The Panel must conclude Respondent is not commonly known by the <trueccar.com> domain name.
Complainant claims Respondent is not using the <trueccar.com> domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent uses the domain name to resolve to a website featuring Complainant’s mark which directly competes with Complainant’s automobile business. Using a domain name to resolve to a competing website is not a bona fide offering or fair use. See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that “use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”). Screenshots of Respondent’s <trueccar.com> website show it uses Complainant’s TRUE CAR mark, as well as a third party’s mark (SAMS CLUB) and automobiles for sale. Respondent is using the domain name to resolve to a competing website. Respondent failed to use the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶4(c)(i) and (iii).
Respondent registered the disputed domain name using a WHOIS privacy service. Respondent has done nothing to publicly associate itself with the disputed domain name. Therefore, Respondent has acquired no rights to the disputed domain name simply by registering it.
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii) satisfied.
Respondent registered and is using the <trueccar.com> domain name in bad faith by disrupting Complainant’s business and diverting Internet users to Respondent’s competing website. Using a domain name to disrupt a complainant’s business is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iii). See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark to divert Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iii).”). Screenshots indicate the <trueccar.com> website features Complainant’s TRUE CAR mark and offers to sell competing goods. Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iii).
Complainant claims Respondent is using the domain name to create confusion with Complainant’s mark for Respondent’s commercial gain. Using a domain name to attract Internet users and create confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement therein may evidence bad faith. See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶4(b)(iv).”). Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that directly competes with Complainant’s online platform for automobile sales. Respondent uses the domain name to create confusion with Complainant’s mark for commercial gain. Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv).
Respondent registered the domain name with full knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark. Actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name is adequate evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). Respondent actually copied Complainant’s mark. That did not plausibly happen by accident. A respondent cannot copy a complainant’s mark and then claim it was just a coincidence. The Panel must find Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights when the <trueccar.com> domain name was registered and subsequently used.
While Complainant does not say it in so many words, it seems obvious Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith by attempting to pass itself off as Complainant. Using a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant and offer competing goods or services constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Bargman, D2000-0222 (WIPO May 29, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s use of the title “Dodgeviper.com Official Home Page” gave consumers the impression that the complainant endorsed and sponsored the respondent’s website); see also Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶4(b)(iv).”). Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant by advertising competing services in bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv).
Respondent registered the disputed domain name using a WHOIS privacy service. In the commercial context, this raises the rebuttable presumption of bad faith registration and use. Respondent has done nothing to rebut that presumption.
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(iii) satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered the <trueccar.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist
Dated: Thursday, May 17, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page