WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Kansas City Steak Company, LLC v. Compsys Domain, Compsys Domain Solutions Private Limited

Case No. D2018-0538

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Kansas City Steak Company, LLC, of Kansas City, Missouri, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Dodd Call Black, United States.

The Respondent is Compsys Domain, Compsys Domain Solutions Private Limited of Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The Disputed Domain Name <kansascitystakes.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 12, 2018. On March 12, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On March 13, 2018, 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 March 13, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 2, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 3, 2018.

The Center appointed John Swinson as the sole panelist in this matter on April 10, 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

The Complainant is Kansas City Steak Company, LLC. The Complainant markets and sells steaks and various other meats and seafood via its online store.

The Complainant owns a number of registered trade marks, including United States Registered Trademark Number 3,894,581 for KANSASCITYSTEAKS.COM, filed on March 16, 2009 and registered on December 10, 2010 (the “Trade Mark”).

The Complainant also owns a number of domain names which incorporate the Trade Mark. The Complainant operates its online store via a website at <kansascitysteaks.com>. This domain name was registered on May 23, 1996.

The Respondent is Compsys Domain Solutions Private Limited. The Respondent did not file a Response, and consequently little information is known about the Respondent. The Respondent appears to be a privacy service.

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on November 21, 2017. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a parking page displaying pay-per-click (“PPC”) links, some of which relate to the Complainant’s competitors.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant makes the following contentions.

- Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. The Disputed Domain Name is phonetically identical to the Trade Mark, and differs only by using a homophone of “steaks”.

The Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name is an example of “soundsquatting”, which takes advantage of the sound similarity of words and an Internet user’s confusion as to which words represent the desired concepts.

- Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to register or use the Disputed Domain Name.

Before notice of this dispute, the Respondent had not used, nor had it prepared to use, the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent has not operated any bona fide business under the Disputed Domain Name, nor is it commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name.

The Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to host a parked page which displays PPC links, some of which resolve to websites that directly compete with the Complainant’s business. Such use by the Respondent does not represent a bona fide offering, especially where such links capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the Trade Mark.

- Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Disputed Domain Name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant. The Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website or other online locations, for example, the Complainant’s competitor’s websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Trade Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location.

Specifically, the Respondent has shown bad faith by using the Disputed Domain Name to display PPC links, some of which resolve to websites that directly compete with the Complainant’s business, thereby improperly competing with and capitalizing on the reputation and goodwill of the Trade Mark and misleading Internet users.

The Disputed Domain Name is an example of soundsquatting, which is a form of typosquatting. It is well-settled that the practice of typosquatting constitutes evidence of bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied, namely:

(i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and

(iii) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The onus of proving these elements remains on the Complainant even though the Respondent has not filed a Response.

A. Procedural Issues

The Respondent’s failure to file a response does not automatically result in a decision in favour of the Complainant (see, e.g., Airbus SAS, Airbus Operations GmbH v. Alesini Pablo Hernan / PrivacyProtect.org, WIPO Case No. D2013-2059). However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.

As the Complainant submitted, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. As submitted by the Complainant, the Disputed Domain Name is phonetically identical to the Trade Mark.

The Disputed Domain Name differs from the Trade Mark only by a misspelling of the word “steaks” (which appears in the Disputed Domain Name as “stakes”). It is well established that typosquatting (or, as the Complainant submits, “soundsquatting”) can constitute confusing similarity (Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft v. New York TV Tickets Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-1314, DaimlerChrysler Corporation v. Worshipping, Chrisler, and Chr, aka Dream Media and aka Peter Conover, WIPO Case No. D2000-1272 and Playboy Enterprises v. Movie Name Company, WIPO Case No. D2001-1201). The Panel considers this to be a clear case of typosquatting.

The Complainant succeeds on the first element of the Policy.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests.

The Panel considers the Complainant has made out a prima facie case. This finding is based on the following:

- The Respondent has not used, or made demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The website at the Disputed Domain Name features PPC link pages. A number of these links direct Internet users to the Complainant’s competitors. This is not a bona fide use of the Disputed Domain Name under the Policy.

- The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submission that the Complainant has not authorized or otherwise given the Respondent permission to use the Disputed Domain Name.

- There is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, or has registered or common law trade mark rights in relation to this name.

- The Respondent has not been making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name without intent for commercial gain. It is likely that the Respondent is profiting from the PPC advertising on the website at the Disputed Domain Name. In the absence of any evidence from the Respondent to the contrary, the Panel is of the view that this does not amount to a bona fide use for the purposes of the Policy.

- As previous panels have found, typosquatting is not a legitimate use of the Trade Mark (see, e.g., Edmunds.com, Inc. v. Yingkun Guo, dba This domain is 4 sale, WIPO Case No. D2006-0694; Barnes & Noble College Bookstores, Inc. v. Oleg Techino, WIPO Case No. D2006-1537).

The Respondent had the opportunity to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests, but did not do so. As such, the prima facie case established by the Complainant has not been rebutted and the Complainant succeeds on the second element of the Policy.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent registered and subsequently used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.

The Complainant has had registered rights in the Trade Mark since as early as 2010. The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on November 21, 2017. As far as the Panel is aware, the Respondent has not used, and does not intend to use, the Disputed Domain Name other than to display PPC links. The Disputed Domain Name is not descriptive of the services advertised via the PPC links. There is no other obvious reason for the Respondent to register this particular Disputed Domain Name other than for the purpose of attempting to trade off the Complainant’s goodwill in the Trade Mark.

The Panel considers that the most likely source of traffic that the Disputed Domain Name would generate is from Internet users who mistakenly type the Disputed Domain Name into their Internet browser instead of the Complainant’s domain name. As such, the Panel also infers that the Respondent has attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, affiliation or endorsement of the website. This amounts to evidence of bad faith use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Further, previous panels have found that if a Respondent has engaged in typosquatting, that is sufficient to establish registration and use in bad faith (Barnes & Noble College Bookstores, Inc. v. Oleg Techino, WIPO Case No. D2006-1537; Edmunds.com, Inc. v. Yingkun Guo, dba This domain is 4 sale, WIPO Case No. D2006-0694; Sephora v. WhoisGuard, WIPO Case No. D2006-0845). The Panel agrees with this view.

This is a clear case of typosquatting. The Respondent has registered the Trade Mark containing a misspelling or homophone of the work “steaks”, most likely to divert traffic from the Complainant’s website to the Respondent’s website. The Panel finds that this constitutes bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

In light of the above, and in the absence of a Response and any evidence rebutting bad faith registration and use, the Panel finds that the Complainant has succeeded on the third element of the Policy.

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 Name <kansascitystakes.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

John Swinson
Sole Panelist
Date: April 24, 2018