About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs v. Francesco Salerno

Case No. D2018-1356

1. The Parties

Complainant is The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented by Demys Limited, United Kingdom.

Respondent is Francesco Salerno of Timisoara, Romania.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <uk-hmrc.site> and <uk-hmrc.tax> are registered with CSL Computer Service Langenbach GmbH dba Joker.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 18, 2018. On June 18, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On June 19, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 27, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 17, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on July 18, 2018.

The Center appointed Timothy D. Casey as the sole panelist in this matter on July 26, 2018. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

Complainant is a non-ministerial department of the United Kingdom Government that is responsible for the collection of taxes among other duties. As Complainant administers the United Kingdom’s tax system, almost every individual and business in the United Kingdom is a direct customer of Complainant. Complainant operates a website under the United Kingdom Government’s portal <gov.uk> which can be accessed through the domain name <hmrc.gov.uk>.

Complainant has registered the HMRC trademark in the United Kingdom in classes 9, 16, 25, 26, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42 and 45 based on an application first filed November 5, 2007 (the “HMRC Trademark”) and entered in the register on March 28, 2008. Complainant had been using the HMRC Trademark for at least eleven years prior to the noted filing date. Complainant has over 375,000 followers on Twitter and over 27,000 followers on Facebook.

Complainant notes that it and its customers, like many other tax authorities the world over, as subject to frequent phishing and online scams and that the domain names used in such scams have certain common characteristics, which are demonstrated in the articles of Article Bundle A of the Complaint, including:

- The use of domain names made up of Complainant’s marks and one or more generic terms;

- Terms closely associated with Complainant, such as “tax”, “contact” or “advice” or that suggest a call to action, such as “refund”, “rebate” or “demand”;

- Terms associated with Internet-related functions, such as “online”, “email” or “click”;

- The lack of qualifying terms that make the relationship (or non-relationship) between the registrant and Complainant clear and unambiguous, such as “unofficial”;

- The use of visually similar domain names to Complainant’s marks;

- The use of typographical variants of Complainant’s marks, also known as “typo” domains;

- The use of false contact details in WhoIs or provision of same to the registrar;

- The use third party names and/or addresses acquired through identity theft;

- The use of privacy services on WhoIs or other masked data;

- Inactive websites, display of pay-per-click (“PPC”) advertising, or the use of default “parking pages” where it is likely a domain name has been used for email-related purposes;

- The use of domain names to send and receive “phishing” emails;

- The registration of many domain names in many spaces by a single registrant to allow for the speedy resumption of fraud should a single domain name be put out of action.

Complainant notes that it has successfully asserted its rights in at least 11 previous UDRP cases resulting in the transfer of disputed domain names.

Respondent registered the disputed domain names on January 17, 2018. At least as of May 3, 2018, the disputed domain names did not resolve to active websites.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that the disputed domain names, which include the HMRC Trademark in its entirety, preceded by the common acronym “UK” and a hyphen, are confusingly similar to the HMRC Trademark. Complainant notes that because it is the United Kingdom Government’s sole tax service, the “UK” acronym is commonly associated with Complainant and its activities and that the acronym does nothing to distinguish the disputed domain names from the HMRC Trademark. Rather, the use of the acronym likely serves to increase the potential for confusion.

Complainant further contends that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”) “.site” and “.tax” do not reduce the potential for confusion and may actually enhance it, especially since “.tax” relates entirely to Complainant’s charter and activities.

Complainant contends that Respondent’s is not known by the HMRC Trademark nor is Respondent a licensee or received any consent, permission or acquiescence from Complainant to use the HMRC Trademark. Complainant further contends that Respondent has not demonstrated use of or preparation to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, as evidenced by Respondent’s failure to use the disputed domain names to resolve to any website. Complainant alleges that it can conceive of no use of the disputed domain name by Respondent that would not infringe on the HMRC Trademark and not cause widespread confusion due to the inherently confusing similarity between the disputed domain name the HMRC Trademark. Complainant asserts that Respondent’s passive use of the disputed domain names fails to establish any legitimate interest or bona fide use on behalf of Respondent and that Respondent’s failure to respond to Complainant’s correspondence regarding the disputed domain names is further evidence of a lack of legitimate interest and bona fide use by Respondent.

As for evidence of registration and use in bad faith, Complainant again points to Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain names and notes: (i) that Complainant is well known in the United Kingdom and beyond by the HMRC Trademark, which has been in use for at least 23 years prior to registration of the disputed domain names; (ii) Respondent failed to reply to Complainant’s correspondence regarding Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names, which a bona fide registrant would have done; and (iii) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain names could be put.

In addition, while Complainant cannot exhibit direct evidence of fraudulent use, Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names feature characteristics typical of domain names that have been or are being used for phishing emails or other fraudulent use (outlined in the Factual Background, supra), and that it is reasonable to infer in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that it is more likely than not that fraud or other illegitimate use was the purpose for which the disputed domain names were registered.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant’s use of the HMRC Trademark more than 23 years prior to registration of the disputed domain name, and Complainant’s registration of the HMRC Trademark since 2007, are more than sufficient to establish that Complainant has trademark rights in the HMRC Trademark.

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the HMRC Trademark and is confusingly similar to the HMRC Trademark. Complainant contends that the addition of gTLDs and the “UK” acronym are not sufficient to change the overall impression of the disputed domain name as being confusingly similar to Complainant’s HMRC Trademark.

The Panel agrees and finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the HMRC Trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant has not licensed, permitted or otherwise authorized Respondent to use or register the disputed domain names. The Panel also agrees that the passive holding of the disputed domain names and Respondent’s failure to defend its right to use the disputed domain names in response to Complainant’s communication evidence a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Given i) the timing of Complainant’s first use and first registration of the HMRC Trademark and Complainant’s use of the HMRC Trademark in association with the noted services, ii) Respondent’s association in the disputed domain names of the HMRC Trademark with the acronym “UK” and “.tax”, relating to Complainant’s activities, iii) the subsequent timing of the registrations of the disputed domain names, and iv) the potential for use of the disputed domain names for phishing and other online scams, the Panel finds that Respondent clearly knew of the HMRC Trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. Respondent’s registrations of the disputed domain names were therefore in bad faith.

In addition, the Panel finds the subsequent lack of usage of the disputed domain names, as previously described, constitute use in bad faith consistent with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

The Panel concludes that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names, <uk-hmrc.site> and <uk-hmrc.tax>, be transferred to Complainant.

Timothy D. Casey
Sole Panelist
Date: August 7, 2018

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/