WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

The Complainant owns the domain name <chapps.com>, registered on April 2, 2005.

The disputed domain names were registered on May 31, 2018, that is, on the same day as the date of filing of the trademark applications for CHAPPS BUILDING INSPECTOR and CHAPPS DORM INSPECTOR by the Complainant before the European Union Intellectual Property Office.

The Web sites to which the disputed domain names resolve comprise pay-per-click sponsored links that redirect Internet users to various offers made available by third parties. The links comprised therein, and their order change from time to time.

Currently the disputed domain name <chappsbuildinginspector.com> shows advertisements such as: “Vuelos Paratos [sic]” (Cheap flights), “Traductor” (Translator), “IPhone”, “Prestamos Online” (Online Loans), “Facebook”, “Seguros de Coche” (Car Insurance); while the disputed domain name <chappsdorminspector.com> displays the following: “Amnesia” (Amnesia), “Seguros de Coche” (Car Insurance), “Facebook”, “Traductor” (Translator), “Abogados” (Lawyers), and “Apuestas Deportivas” (Sports betting).

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant argued the following:

That the Complainant is a Belgian company operating on an international level and specialized in creating a wide range of inspection solutions, specifically tailored for the real estate sector, which offers several applications for the different inspection challenges such as a “Dorm Inspector” and a “Building Inspector”.

That the “Dorm Inspector” is an application created to manage student housing inspections which allows to perform move-in and -out inspections, room conditions reports and check-ups, while the “Building Inspector” is a mobile application created to accommodate real estate managers, building managers, or block managers in residential real estates.

That the Complainant owns the domain name <chapps.com>.

That the Respondents’ identity was hidden by means of a privacy protection shield, which past UDRP panels have held as further evidence of bad faith registration and use.

That the disputed domain names have been registered on May 31, 2018, which is the same date as the date of the filing of trademark applications for CHAPPS BUILDING INSPECTOR and CHAPPS DORM INSPECTOR by the Complainant.

That, at the time of filling of the initial Complaint, the disputed domain names resolved to web sites which offered said disputed domain names for sale at the same price of USD 990, which indicates that the Respondents registered the disputed domain names with the intention of selling them.

That, on April 24, 2019, the Complainant sent a formal notice to the Registrar in order to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain names; however, the Registrar replied that he could not validate or control the content posted on those web sites.

That, on April 25, 2019, the Complainant tried to reach the Respondents by completing a form on the Registrar’s web site; however, the Respondents never made contact with the Complainant.

That different UDRP panels have held that failure to respond to a cease-and-desist letter may be considered a factor in finding bad faith in registration and use of a domain name.

That, at the time of filling of the amended Complaint, the web sites to which the disputed domain names resolved did no longer offer them for sale but displayed the same parking web page of the Registrar, with the following inscription: “This domain is parked free of charge with NameSilo.com.”

(i) The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.

That the Complainant is the owner of, among others, European Union Trademark Registrations (“EUTM”) for the trademarks CHAPPS BUILDING INSPECTOR, CHAPPS DORM INSPECTOR and CHAPPS, as well as an International Trademark Registration for CHAPPS, all in classes 9, 35, and 42.

That the extension “.com” is of no incidence on the appreciation of the identicality or similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark rights.

That the second-level portions of the disputed domain names are identical to the Complainant’s EUTM registrations. That, therefore, the disputed domain name <chappsbuildinginspector.com> is identical to the Complainant’s trademark CHAPPS BUILDING INSPECTOR, and the disputed domain name <chappsdorminspector.com> to the trademark CHAPPS DORM INSPECTOR.

That the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s earlier trademark registration for CHAPPS, as they incorporate such trademark in its entirety, and that the addition of the descriptive terms “building inspector” and “dorm inspector” does not negate such resemblance, especially in the light of previous decisions issued under the Policy, in which Panels have ruled that the incorporation of the totality of a complainant’s registered mark in a domain name is sufficient to establish identity or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy.

(ii) The Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

That the disputed domain names were registered by two individuals who have no rights to, or legitimate interests in them.

That, in accordance with the trademark searches conducted by the Complainant, the Respondents do not own any valid trademark or trade name rights to the names CHAPPS, CHAPPS BUILDING INSPECTOR, CHAPPS DORM INSPECTOR or any combination thereof.

That the Complainant did not consent to the Respondents’ registration and use of the disputed domain names.

That the Respondents are not commonly known by the disputed domain names.

That none of the Respondents has any connection to, or affiliation with the Complainant, nor have they obtained any license or consent, express or implied, to use the trademarks CHAPPS, CHAPPS BUILDING INSPECTOR, or CHAPPS DORM INSPECTOR in a domain name, or in any other manner.

That the Respondents have never used the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services since the date of their registration.

That, at the moment when the initial Complaint was filed, the disputed domain names resolved to web sites that offered them for sale for USD 990. That, therefore, the Respondents’ primary intention was to sell the disputed domain names with the Complainant’s trademarks in mind.

That, at the time of filing of the amended Complaint, the disputed domain names resolved to web pages parked by the Registrar, which do not attest to a bona fide use of the disputed domain names.

That there is no evidence showing that the Respondents are making a legitimate, non commercial, or fair use of the disputed domain names.

That it is unlikely that the Respondents would have any right or legitimate interest in acquiring domain names containing the trademarks of a Belgian company.

(iii) Registration and use in bad faith.

That the Respondents were hiding their identity behind a privacy service shield, and that it is difficult to see why the Respondents need to protect their identity, except in order to frustrate the purposes of the Policy, or to make it difficult for the Complainant to protect its trademarks against infringement, dilution and cybersquatting.

That the Respondents’ registration of the disputed domain names on the same date that the Complainant filed trademark applications for CHAPS BUILDING INSPECTOR and CHAPPS DORM INSPECTOR suggests that the Respondents knew about the Complainant and only registered the disputed domain names in response to the Complainant’s filings.

That such timing, in combination with the fact that the Respondents registered two domain names incorporating the Complainant’s trademarks, cannot be claimed as a coincidence, and that this suggests opportunistic bad faith.

That the disputed domain names were registered with the Complainant’s trademarks in mind and that it is difficult to conceive any plausible reason for combining the word “chapps” with the elements “building inspector” and “dorm inspector” other that in connection with the Complainant’s trademarks.

That the Complainant’s trademarks CHAPPS have been registered in the European Union and the United States of America for several years, which reinforces the chances that the Respondents were aware or should have been aware of the existence of this trademark before registering the disputed domain names.

That the Respondents registered the disputed domain names which fully incorporate the Complainant’s newly filed trademarks and offered them for sale for USD 990, which is in excess of the Respondents’ out of pocket registration costs.

That such conduct constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, since the Respondents have demonstrated an intent to sell, rent or otherwise transfer the disputed domain names for valuable consideration in excess of their out of pocket expenses.

That this evidence of bad faith is reinforced by the fact that the Respondents removed the content of the respective web sites immediately after the filing of the initial Complaint by the Complainant, and that the disputed domain names currently resolve to the web pages parked by the Registrar.

That the fact that the Respondents ignored the Complainant’s attempts to resolve this dispute outside of an administrative proceeding, further reinforces a finding of bad faith.

B. Respondents

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

6. Discussion and Findings

The Complainant must prove that the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been met:

(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.

In view of the Respondents’ failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this proceeding on the basis of the Complainant’s undisputed factual allegations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a), and 15(a) of the Rules, and shall draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules (see Boris Johnson v. Belize Domain WhoIs Service Lt, WIPO Case No. D2010-1954).

Preliminary Discussion- Consolidation of Complaints

The Complainant has requested to consolidate the proceedings for the disputed domain names, which, according to the Registrar’s records, were registered by two different Respondents. The Complainant claims that both of the disputed domain names are subject to common control, due to the following reasons:

- The addresses of both Respondents indicate the same street (Cankaya mah cad), in the same city (Cankaya), in the same province (Ankara), in the same country (Turkey), and the addresses differ only by the houses’ numbers (930 vs. 904).

- The postal codes in both addresses are incorrect, which indicates the same irregularities in the registration of the disputed domain names.

- The telephone numbers of both Respondents are identical.

- The Internet Protocol (IP) addresses linked to both of the disputed domain names are identical.

- The layouts of the web sites to which the disputed domain names resolve were, and are identical.

- The disputed domain names have been registered on the same day (May 31, 2018) which is also the same date of filing of the trademark applications for CHAPPS BUILDING INSPECTOR and CAPPS DORM INSPECTOR by the Complainant before the EUTM.

The consolidation of complaints filed against multiple respondents should be permitted when (i) the domain names or corresponding Web sites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties (see section 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

Based on the above arguments, which are supported by the relevant Annexes, the Panel considers that the Complainant has established beyond reasonable doubt that the disputed domain names are subject to common ownership or control. In light of the circumstances of this case, the Panel further concludes that consolidation will further the objective of the Policy by providing a procedurally efficient proceeding, while keeping said proceeding fair and equitable to the Parties. Therefore, the Panel will allow the consolidation of the Complaints pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules, as requested by the Complainant.

A. Identity and Confusingly Similarity

The Complainant has provided evidence showing that it is the owner of EUTM registrations for CHAPPS BUILDING INSPECTOR, CHAPPS DORM INSPECTOR, and CHAPPS, as well as of an International Trademark Registration for CHAPPS, all in classes 9, 35 and, 42, used in connection with mobile solutions and applications for real estate inspections.

The disputed domain name <chappsbuildinginspector.com> is identical to the Complainant’s trademark CHAPPS BUILDING INSPECTOR, and the disputed domain name <chappsdorminspector.com> to the trademark CHAPPS DORM INSPECTOR.

Furthermore, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark CHAPPS, as they incorporate said trademark in its entirety. The addition of descriptive terms such as “building inspector” and “dorm inspector” to the disputed domain names does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. The nature of such additional terms may however bear on assessment of the second and third elements (see section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).

The addition of the gTLD “.com” to the disputed domain names does not avoid the risk of confusing similarity; therefore, it is without significance in the present case (see Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Gui He Xing, WIPO Case No. D2018-1446; Accor v. Noldc Inc., WIPO Case No. D2005-0016; F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A., WIPO Case No. D2006-0451).

The first element of the Policy has been met.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets forth the following examples as circumstances where a respondent may have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name:

(i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the use by the respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

The Complainant states that the Respondents have no rights to, or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and that the Complainant did not consent to the Respondents’ registration and use of the disputed domain names.

Furthermore, the Complainant attests that none of the Respondents has any connection to, or affiliation with the Complainant, or that any of them has received any license or consent, express or implied, to use of the trademarks CHAPPS, CHAPPS BUILDING INSPECTOR or CHAPPS DORM INSPECTOR, in any manner. The Respondents have not challenged this allegation.

As there is no evidence contained in the case file showing that the Respondents have been commonly known as the disputed domain names, such conduct cannot be deemed to have taken place in good faith, and therefore cannot confer any rights to, or legitimate interests over, the disputed domain names (see Minerva S.A. v. TT Host, WIPO Case No. D2016-0384; Accor v. SANGHO HEO / Contact Privacy Inc., WIPO Case No. D2014-1471).

The disputed domain names currently display pay-per-click advertising links that redirect the Internet users to other online locations, such as: “Vuelos Paratos [sic]” (Cheap flights), “Traductor” (Translator), “IPhone”, “Prestamos Online” (Online Loans), “Facebook”, “Seguros de Coche” (Car Insurance), “Amnesia” (Eng: Amnesia), “Abogados” (Lawyers) or “Apuestas Deportivas” (Sports betting).

While a web page displaying pay-per-click links does not constitute an illegitimate or illegal activity per se, based on the circumstances of the present case, the Panel concludes that the Respondents are not making a bona fide offering of goods or services, and the Respondents’ use of the disputed domain names does not constitute a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers (see Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Domain Administrator, PrivacyGuardian.org / George Ring, DN Capital Inc., WIPO Case No. D2017-0302; Virgin Enterprises Limited v. LINYANXIAO aka lin yanxiao, WIPO Case No. D2016-2302; see also, Lardi Ltd v. Belize Domain WHOIS Service Lt, WIPO Case No. D2010-1437).

For these reasons, and in the absence of a Response from the Respondents, the Panel considers that the Complainant has prima facie proven that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

The second element of the Policy has been met.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

According to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be evidence of registration and use in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or the respondent has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.

The Respondents acquired the disputed domain names that fully contain the Complainant’s CHAPPS BUILDING INSPECTOR and CHAPPS DORM INSPECTOR trademarks, on the same day that the Complainant filed its applications for the registration of the said trademarks, and currently use them to display pay per click advertisement links.

The timing of the registration of the disputed domain names unequivocally evinces that the Respondents knew of the existence of the Complainant and its trademark applications, and suggests the opportunistic bad faith in the registration of the disputed domain names (see Ipsen Pharma S.A.S. v. Admin - This Domain is for sale on Godaddy.com Escrow.com, Trnames Premium Name Services, WIPO Case No. D2018-0089; Aviva Brands Limited v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Domain Admin, WIPO Case No. D2018-0632).

The Respondents have attempted to capitalize on the Complainant’s trademark rights by redirecting the traffic that was originally designated for the Complainant to the web sites to which the disputed domain names resolve, thus creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement with the Complainant’s trademarks. This conduct constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

The addition of descriptive terms such as “building inspector” and “dorm inspector” to the disputed domain names may increase confusion, as those terms are directly related to the solutions and applications offered by the Complainant (see V&S Vin & Sprit AB v. Ooar Supplies, WIPO Case No. D2004-0962; Research in Motion Limited v. One Star Global LLC, WIPO Case No. D2009-0227 and Golden Goose S.p.A. v. Whoisguard Inc. / Wei Zhang, WIPO Case No. D2018-1027).

In addition, the Respondents initially offered the disputed domain names for sale, for a price of USD 990. Such conduct clearly indicates that the Respondents registered the disputed domain names primarily for the purpose of selling them for a price that significantly exceeds any documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain names, which further supports the evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith (see Viceroy Cayman Ltd. v. Anthony Syrowatka, WIPO Case No. D2011-2118; World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. v. Michael Bosman, WIPO Case No. D1999-0001; OVH SAS v. EE, Emre Erim, WIPO Case No. D2012-0330).

For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondents registered and are using the disputed domain names in bad faith (see Ipsen Pharma S.A.S. v. Admin - This Domain is for sale on Godaddy.com Escrow.com, Trnames Premium Name Services, WIPO Case No. D2018-0089).

The third element of the Policy has been met.

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 <chappsbuildinginspector.com> and <chappsdorminspector.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Kiyoshi Tsuru
Sole Panelist
Date: July 31, 2019