Gerardo Daniel Hadad, INFOBAE v. WhoisGuard, Inc.
Claim Number: FA2009001915009
Complainant: Gerardo Daniel Hadad, INFOBAE of Miami Beach, Florida, United States of America.
Complainant Representative: Marcos Stupenengo, INFOBAE of Miami Beach, Florida, United States of America.
Respondent: WhoisGuard Protected / WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama, International, PA.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Dog Beach, LLC
Registrars: NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Flip Jan Claude Petillion, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: September 28, 2020
Commencement: September 29, 2020
Default Date: October 14, 2020
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules").
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
The Complainant, Gerardo Daniel Hadad, operates a news website linked to the domain name <infobae.com>. The Complainant owns several trademarks for the sign INFOBAE, including the following:
- an Argentinian word mark INFOBAE registered under No. 2.600.123 for advertising, business management and business administration services;
- a Mexican figurative mark consisting of the term INFOBAE in orange letters, registered under No. 2130888 in relation to telecommunication and news agency services.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <infobae.live> on June 8, 2020. According to the Complainant’s evidence, the disputed domain name referred to a website which is almost an exact copy of the Complainant’s official website. The disputed domain name is currently inactive.
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
[URS
1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar
to a word mark:
(i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration
and that is in current use; or
(ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
(iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the
time the URS complaint is filed.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
The record makes clear that the Complainant "holds a valid national or regional registration and that [it] is in current use". The Examiner finds that the second-level portion of the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s INFOBAE registered trademark. As the top level domain is irrelevant in assessing identity or confusing similarity, the new gTLD “.LIVE” is of no consequence here (Facebook Inc. v. Radoslav, Claim Number: FA1308001515825). As the registered domain name is identical to a word mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration that is in current use, the Examiner considers that the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the URS in accordance with paragraph 1.2.6.1 of the URS.
[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its registered INFOBAE trademark. The Respondent has not submitted any evidence to prove that he or she is commonly known under the disputed domain name. There is no evidence about rights or legitimate interest in INFOBAE and the disputed domain name, or evidence about a fair use either.
The Examiner observes that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s INFOBAE trademark. Combined with the gTLD “.LIVE”, which can be considered as referring to the Complainant’s live news coverage, the Examiner finds that the disputed domain name carries a high risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant (see section 2.5.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0). This is further strengthened by the fact that according to the Complainant’s evidence, the disputed domain name referred to a website which is almost an exact copy of the Complainant’s official website. The Examiner finds that such impersonation cannot constitute fair use (see section 2.13 of WIPO Overview 3.0). The Respondent does not contest the arguments of the Complainant. Therefore, the Examiner finds that the second element for the Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name under URS 1.2.6.2 has also been proven.
[URS
1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the
purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name
registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service
mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in
excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name;
or
b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark
holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name,
provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting
the business of a competitor; or
d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract
for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web
site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with
the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship,
affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location or of a
product or service on that web site or location.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
Given the fact that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s INFOBAE trademark and referred to a website which was clearly copied from the Complainant’s official website, it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant and its trademark rights when registering the disputed domain name. The Respondent even copied the Complainant’s figurative INFOBAE trademark.
In the circumstances of this case, the Examiner finds that the disputed domain name was used to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's INFOBAE trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website. In the Examiner’s view, hosting a copycat version of the Complainant’s website is a clear indication of the Respondent’s bad faith (see section 3.4 of WIPO Overview 3.0).
In addition, the Examiner finds that it is difficult to imagine any future good faith use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent.
The Respondent did not file any response to contest the above. Therefore, the Examiner finds that the third element for the Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name under URS 1.2.6.3 has been proven.
After reviewing the Complainant’s 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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
<infobae.live>
Flip Jan Claude Petillion, Examiner
Dated: October 16, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page