WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Moneyweek Limited v. he jianyi
Case No. D2015-1700
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Moneyweek Limited of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by Osborne Clarke, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is he jianyi of Hong Kong, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <moneyweak.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the "Registrar").
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on September 24, 2015. On September 25, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 25, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 15, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 4, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on November 5, 2015.
The Center appointed Sir Ian Barker as the sole panelist in this matter on November 17, 2015. 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
The Complainant, a United Kingdom corporation, publishes a financial magazine called "Moneyweek" which enjoys a high sales volume. The Complainant publishes an online version of the magazine plus additional online content on its website accessed at <moneyweek.com>.
The Complainant owns trademarks for MONEYWEEK in several jurisdictions including the European Union and the United States of America. Registrations of its trademark pre-date the registration of the disputed domain name on February 11, 2015.
The Respondent operates a website accessed by the disputed domain name which is designed to replicate the Complainant's website and associated trademark. The font, layout, color scheme and navigation of the Respondent's website are similar to the Complainant's. The Respondent has copied on to his website content from the Complainant's website including videos and transcripts of interviews, journalist biographies and complaints pages.
The Complainant gave the Respondent no authority to reflect its trademark in a domain name.
5. Parties' Contentions
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademarks. The Respondent is guilty of typosquatting. The disputed domain name is phonetically identical to the trademark. Only one letter has been changed.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant gave him none. The situations outlined in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy do not apply to the Respondent.
The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to be entitled to a transfer of a domain name, a complainant shall prove the following three elements:
(i) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
(ii) The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks. Phonetically, the two sound the same. Only one letter has been changed. This is a blatant example of typosquatting where the spelling of a trademark has been altered minimally by the substitution of only one letter.
Accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant gave the Respondent no authority to reflect the registered trademark in the disputed domain name.
In the absence of any claim by the Respondent that one or other of the situations set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy applies to it, the lack of authority from the Complainant and the Complainant's prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name are sufficient. The Respondent could have filed a Response but did not do so.
Accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is established.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Bad faith registration and use is also present in this case. The reasons for this finding can be summarized thus:
(a) The typosquatting inherent in the minor variant of the Complainant's mark. Typosquatting is obvious evidence of bad faith (see Wikimedia Foundation Inc v. Privacy Protect.org/Domain Tech Enterprises, WIPO Case No. D2015-1705) and many others to similar effect.
(b) By the activities on the website accessed by the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to the websites by creating the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's well-known trademark.
(c) The Respondent has copied substantial material from the Complainant's website in clear breach of the Complainant's copyright.
(d) The fame of the Complainant's publication and its mark make obvious the inference that the Respondent knew of them at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is satisfied.
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 name <moneyweak.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Sir Ian Barker
Date: December 1, 2015