Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The domain name reproduces the entirety of the trademark, with minor exceptions, namely that the full stop in the trademark is deleted from the domain name, the conversion of capital letters in the trademark to lower case letters in the domain name and of course the addition of the “.art” Top Level Domain in the domain name. But those differences are simply because of the nature of constructing a domain name and do not detract from the confusing similarity that is readily apparent. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the DR.SEUSS trademark.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The Respondent has registered a domain name that is substantially the same as the Complainant’s Dr.SEUSS trademark that is world famous and renowned for the pleasure and entertainment it gives to children and others, so it would be perceived by virtually anyone who sees it as part of the Dr. Seuss business. Moreover, linking the domain name with the “.art” generic Top Level Domain virtually guarantees that anyone on the internet who sees the domain name will assume that it is an extension of the Dr. Seuss brand and an official part of its business, which of course it is not. They would also assume that by going to the resolving site of the domain name would lead them to artistic manifestations of the Dr. Seuss work, which of course it will not, as the Respondent is not licensed or permitted to use the trademark in a domain name or anywhere else. It is clear from the evidence that the Respondent has no affiliation with the Complainant and that the Complainant has not authorized it to use its trademark in the domain name or in any other way. The evidence shows that the Respondent is impersonating the Complainant using images lifted from the Complainant’s official website. It is probably the case that the Respondent is also conducting a phishing exercise to obtain personal and financial information from internet users. At the very least, internet users seeing and following the domain name to a website would be confused as to whether it was going to the genuine article or, as is the case, to a misleading website trading unfairly and dishonestly on the Dr.Seuss name. Thus the Respondent has used the domain name to mislead internet users in that way and knowing that it will mislead them. It is also clear that the Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and it is inconceivable that it is so known. All of the foregoing shows that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The fact already set out under rights and legitimate interests are equally applicable to bad faith and they show bad faith registration and use as much as they also show a lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. It is clear from the evidence that the whole construction and use of the domain name has been dishonest and meant to confuse and mislead internet users. That is especially so with respect to those who read the domain name as relating to genuine art, artistic manifestations and informational and educational presentations of the work and activities with which Dr. Seuss has become synonymous. Moreover, this must be assumed to have been done with the intention of making money for the Respondent, either by charges for the services offered and sale of the goods offered or by selling or leasing the domain name. Moreover, the website to which the domain name resolves uses expressions like “Need help placing an order?” showing that the Respondent’s intention has been to make money from selling allegedly genuine works of Dr. Seuss art on the website. To this, the Complainant’s evidence is that it has not licensed or permitted the Respondent to use its trademark. The Respondent’s conduct therefore is designed to disrupt the Complainant’s business and cause confusion among internet users, both of which are indications of bad faith. If the Respondent has any justification for its conduct, it could have explained itself by responding to the Complaint by adducing evidence, but it is in default and has remained silent. Accordingly, it is very clear that the Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith.

After reviewing the parties’ 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 name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

1. drseuss.art