DECISION

 

Europ Assistance North America, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico

Claim Number: FA2310002064521

PARTIES

Complainant is Europ Assistance North America, Inc. ("Complainant"), USA,  represented by Gregory N. Brescia of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico ("Respondent"), Panama.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <generalitravelinsuance.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 3, 2023; Forum received payment on October 3, 2023.

 

On October 3, 2023, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <generalitravelinsuance.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 October 4, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 24, 2023 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@generalitravelinsuance.com. Also on October 4, 2023, 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 25, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

i) Complainant f/k/a Generali Global Assistance, Inc., a directly related division of Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A, a Fortune Global 500 Company, was founded in 1831 and provides various insurance, banking and investment related services across the globe. Complainant has rights in the GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 5,675,885 registered on February 12, 2019). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE mark because it contains Complainant's mark in its entirety, merely excluding the letter "r" in the word "INSURANCE." 

 

ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent's use of the disputed domain name is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The disputed domain's resolving website displays clickable options, which appears to be related to malicious software.

 

iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name resolves to a website, which appears to be related to download malicious software. Respondent has engaged in typosquatting.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on September 19, 2023.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE mark based upon registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 5,675,885 registered on February 12, 2019).

 

3. The disputed domain's resolving website displays clickable options, which appears to be related to malicious software.

 

4. Respondent has engaged in typosquatting.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainant asserts rights in the GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE mark based upon registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 5,675,885 registered on February 12, 2019). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is a valid showing of rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Since Complainant has provided evidence of registration of the GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE mark with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <generalitravelinsuance.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE mark because it contains Complainant's mark in its entirety, merely excluding the letter "r" in the word "INSURANCE."  The Panel finds that the minor typographical error does not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complaint's mark. See Twitch, Interactive, Inc. v. zhang qin, FA 1626511 (Forum, Aug 4, 2015); see also Target Brands, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA1701001714218 (Forum, Mar. 1, 2017) (finding various one-letter misspellings of Target.com to be likely to confuse, and noting that "similar changes have not been found distinguishing by past Forum panels."); see also WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition, section 1.10. ("A domain name which contains a common or obvious misspelling of a trademark normally will be found to be confusingly similar to such trademark, where the misspelled trademark remains the dominant or principal component of the domain name."). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that 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 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 contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Where a response is lacking, relevant information includes the WHOIS and any other assertions by a complainant regarding the nature of its relationship with a respondent. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent's use of the same). The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS information identifies "Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico" as the registrant.  Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant argues Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any noncommercial or fair use because the disputed domain name is used to download malware. Where a disputed domain name is used to download malware, the Panel may find the respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1785199 (Forum June 5, 2018) ("Respondent uses the <coechella.com> domain name to direct internet users to a website which is used to attempt to install malware on visiting devices. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii)." Complainant provides a screenshot of the disputed domain name's resolving website displaying clickable options titled, "International Travel Insurance," "Domestic Travel Insurance," and "International Health Insurance," which appears to be related to malicious software. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith as the disputed domain name is used to download malware. Where a disputed domain name is used to download malware, the Panel may find the respondent uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Asbury Communities, Inc. v. Tiffany Hedges, FA 1785054 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("The Panel here finds that Respondent [installation of malware] further support the conclusion that Respondent registered and used the <asburymethodistvillage.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)"). As previously noted, Complainant provides evidence of the disputed domain name being used to download malware.  The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Next, Complainant contends that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting by deliberately introducing an obvious typographical error and misspelling into the domain name. Respondent's typosquatting is itself evidence of bad faith under UDRP Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See GolfNow, Inc. v. ORM LTD, FA1611001704535 (Forum, Jan. 9, 2017) ("Typosquatting is the practice of using a deliberate misspelling of a complainant's mark in order to take advantage of common typing errors, and is independent evidence of a respondent's bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(iii)."); see also Holland & Hart LLP v. Rob Keating FA2304002042077 (Forum May 25, 2023) ("Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name constitutes typosquatting, and this is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). The Panel notes that the disputed domain name contains Complainant's mark in its entirety, merely excluding the letter "r" in the word "INSURANCE" of Complainant's GENERALI TRAVEL INSURANCE mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting, which constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name UDRP Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <generalitravelinsuance.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: October 26, 2023