Canadian Forest Products Ltd. v. Konner Squires Squires
Claim Number: FA1906001848874
Complainant is Canadian Forest Products Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by Alexander J. Urbelis of Blackstone Law Group LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Konner Squires Squires (“Respondent”), Virginia, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <canf0r.com> registered with Hostinger, UAB.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 20, 2019; the Forum received payment on June 20, 2019.
On June 21, 2019, Hostinger, UAB confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <canf0r.com> domain name is registered with Hostinger, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hostinger, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hostinger, UAB 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 June 21, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 11, 2019 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@canf0r.com. Also on June 21, 2019, 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 July 16, 2-19, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port 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
Complainant has been a provider of quality wood, pulp and paper, and green energy for over 80 years. Complainant has rights in the CANFOR mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 810,008 registered June 21, 1966). See Compl. Ex. 1. Respondent’s <canf0r.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CANFOR mark as Respondent incorporates the entirety of the mark and only substitutes the number “0” for the letter “o” creating a visually similar domain name to Complainant’s mark. Respondent also adds a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <canf0r.com> mark as Complainant never licensed or authorized Respondent to use the CANFOR mark in any way nor is Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name. Further, Respondent engages in typosquatting by capitalizing on Internet users’ misspellings and typographical errors to divert Internet traffic to its own website.
Respondent registered and uses the <canf0r.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant and profit by diverting Internet traffic to the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage where Respondent attempts to siphon bill payments. Respondent further uses an email address associated with the disputed domain name to pass off as an employee of Complainant requesting payment on a fraudulent invoice. Respondent’s attempts to engage in typosquatting is evidence of bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. Respondent registered the <canf0r.com> domain name on May 5, 2019.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name; and that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
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 Panel finds that the disputed domain name, <canf0r.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark, CANFOR. Complainant has adequately plead its rights and interests in and to this trademark. Respondent arrives at the disputed domain name by merely incorporating the entirety of the mark and only substituting the number “0” for the letter “o” creating a visually similar domain name to Complainant’s mark. Respondent also adds a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademark.
As such, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel further finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name. Respondent has no right, permission or license to register the dispute domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent is making neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name; rather, Respondent engages in typosquatting by capitalizing on Internet users’ misspellings and typographical errors to divert Internet traffic to its own website.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name.
The Panel also finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name. Respondent apparently attempts to pass itself off as Complainant and likely profits by diverting Internet traffic to the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage where Respondent attempts to siphon bill payments. Use of a domain name to pass oneself off as a complainant and divert Internet users for commercial gain may be evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting). Complainant does not provide any evidence, Complainant asserts that Respondent attempts to siphon bill payments but does not elaborate as to the affiliated conduct or meaning behind the claim. However, as a default case, the Panel shall take as true all reasonable claims. This is a reasonable claim and, as such, the Panel finds that Respondent engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
Next, Complainant argues that Respondent uses an email address associated with the disputed domain name to pass itself off as an employee of Complainant and request payment for fraudulent invoices. Use of a disputed domain name to pass oneself off as an employee of a complainant in order to obtain personal and financial information maybe evidence of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whose Agent / Whose Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails supported a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). Here, Complainant provides an email chain from an email address associated with the disputed domain name. Complainant argues that the email chain shows Respondent attempting to acquire payment and payment details from an Internet user. See Compl. Ex. 6. Therefore, the Panel finds bad faith use and registration per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Finally, Complainant argues that Respondent’s attempts to engage in typosquatting is further evidence of bad faith. Engaging in typosquatting when registered a domain name may be evidence of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Shuaib Wei Xu / Xu Shuaib Wei, FA 1784238 (Forum June 1, 2018) (finding the respondent engaged in typosquatting—and thus registered and used the at-issue domain names in bad faith—where the names consisted of the complainant’s mark with small typographical errors introduced therein). Respondent’s change to Complainant’s mark was the substitution of the number “0” for the letter “o” to make a visually similar domain name to Complainant’s mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name constitutes typosquatting per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Finally, given the brazen nature of the attempts at passing off, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s trademark and its prior rights thereto.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <canf0r.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: July 19, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page