The Mosaic Company v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD
Claim Number: FA2209002012618
Complainant is The Mosaic Company (“Complainant”), represented by Michael Gale-Butto of Patterson Thuente IP, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD (“Respondent”), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <modaicco.com>, registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited.
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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 19, 2022; Forum received payment on September 19, 2022.
On September 26, 2022, Media Elite Holdings Limited confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <modaicco.com> domain name is registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Media Elite Holdings Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Media Elite Holdings Limited 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 September 28, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 18, 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@modaicco.com. Also on September 28, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 24, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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
1. Respondent’s <modaicco.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MOSAIC mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <modaicco.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <modaicco.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant, The Mosaic Company, provides fertilizer and animal feed products. Complainant holds a registration for the MOSAIC mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,143,074, registered Sep. 12, 2006).
Respondent registered the <modaicco.com> domain name on September 6, 2022, and fails to make an active use of the 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 Complainant has rights in the MOSAIC mark based on registration with the USPTO. See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent’s <modaicco.com> domain name incorporates the MOSAIC mark, substituting the letter “s” in the mark for the letter “d”, and adds “co,” the descriptive abbreviation for company, and a gTLD. These changes do not distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See WordPress Foundation v. Bernat Lubos, FA 1613444 (Forum May 21, 2015) (finding that the <worspress.org> domain name is confusingly similar to the WORDPRESS mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i), stating, “On a standard QWERTY keyboard, the letters ‘s’ and ‘d’ are adjacent. A minor misspelling is not normally sufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a complainant’s mark.”); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis); see also Magnum Piering, Inc. v. Mudjackers, D2000-1525 (WIPO Jan. 29, 2001) (finding that the generic term “INC” does not change the confusing similarity). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <modaicco.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MOSAIC mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have 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 that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <modaicco.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not authorized to use Complainant’s MOSAIC mark. The WHOIS information lists the registrant of the disputed domain name as “Domain Administrator/Fundacion Privacy Services LTD.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Guardair Corporation v. Pablo Palermo, FA1407001571060 (Forum Aug. 28, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the guardair.com domain name according to Policy ¶ (c)(ii), as the WHOIS information lists “Pablo Palermo” as registrant of the disputed domain name); see also Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration).
Complainant also argues that Respondent does not use the <modaicco.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Since no use is being made of the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that Respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
Complainant also asserts that Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the <modaicco.com> domain name is further demonstrated by typosquatting, the intentional misspelling of a mark in a disputed domain name. The Panel agrees and finds that this is additional evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 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).”)
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent has registered and uses the <modaicco.com> domain name in bad faith because it does not resolve to a webpage and has not demonstrated that it prepares to actively use the domain name. The Panel agrees and finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. Zhuang Yan / WANGYONG, FA 1764026 (Forum Feb. 14, 2018) (“Respondent’s domain names do not have resolving websites. Using a domain name to resolve to an inactive website (or no website at all) indicates bad faith registration and use.”)
Complainant also argues that Respondent has registered and uses the <modaicco.com> domain in bad faith because it engages in typosquatting. The Panel agrees and finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See LifeLock, Inc. v. Adam Viener / ThunkTunk LLC, FA1409001579875 (Forum Oct. 28, 2014) (“As the Panel has noted above, at the conclusion of its findings under the first Policy element under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the disputed domain name <lifelocl.com> differs from the LIFELOCK mark only by substituting the letter ‘L’ for the letter ‘K’ in the LOCK-portion of Complainant’s registered mark. The Panel finds this behavior amounts to typosquatting, and as such the Panel finds this to be evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(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 <modaicco.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: October 25, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page