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

Technisem v. Wire Lord

Case No. D2020-2136

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Technisem, France, represented by Cabinet Bouchara, France.

The Respondent is Wire Lord, United States of America (“United States”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <technlsem.com> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 13, 2020. On August 13, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 13, 2020, 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 August 17, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 6, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 7, 2020.

The Center appointed Alistair Payne as the sole panelist in this matter on September 23, 2020. 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 has operated in the business of producing and marketing vegetable seeds for tropical regions for more than 35 years. It owns various trade mark registrations internationally for its TECHNISEM trade mark including French trade mark registration number 3696807 for TECHNISEM registered on December 7, 2009. The Complainant has since September 21, 1999 owned the domain name <technisem.com> and operated its main website from this domain name as well as its email addresses.

The disputed domain name was registered on July 8, 2020. It diverts to a placeholder website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant submits that it owns registered trade mark rights for its TECHNISEM trade mark as noted above. It says that the disputed domain name is almost identical to this trade mark apart from the misspelling of the middle “i” for an “l”. The Complainant submits that this misspelling amounts to typosquatting and that on a QWERTY or AZERTY keyboard the “l” is next to the “i”. As a consequence it asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark registration.

The Complainant says that the Respondent does not own rights in any trade marks equivalent to the disputed domain name and has not obtained the Complainant’s authorization to reproduce and imitate the Complainant’s trade mark within the disputed domain name. It says that this amounts to a case of typosquatting which is illegitimate and in circumstances that the disputed domain name is being used to host a fraudulent email address in aid of a phishing scam then it cannot be considered legitimate.

The Complainant submits that it learned on July 8, 2020 that an email address featuring the ending “@technlsem.com” was used in a scam email in which the sender, pretending to be an employee of the Complainant, instructed one of the Complainant’s customers to make a financial transfer to a Polish account not belonging to the Complainant. Luckily says the Complainant, its customer picked up on the scam and reported it to the Complainant.

This says the Complainant is evidence of bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b) (iii) of the Policy. Further, it submits that the use by the Respondent in the emails of the name of the Complainant’s accountant and of the Complainant’s trade mark, shows that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its business rights and targeted its business. The fact that the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website is further evidence, according to the Complainant, that the sole purpose of the registration of the disputed domain name was to serve as a tool in an email scam.

The Complainant notes that its TECHNISEM mark is distinctive and the Respondent obviously chose the disputed domain name with a slight variation for the purpose of typosquatting and of the domain name email scam as described above. Finally, it notes that the Respondent is currently the holder of more than 1,000 domain names and suggests that a large part of these involve examples of typosquatting of well-known marks.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns French trade mark registration number 3696807 for TECHNISEM registered on December 7, 2009. The disputed domain name only differs from this mark by the replacement of the letter “i” for the letter “l”. This appears to be a misspelling of the Complainant’s distinctive mark and visually the two marks look very similar and begin and end with the same syllable groups. As a result the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trade mark and the Complaint succeeds under this element of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has submitted that the Respondent does not own rights in any trade marks equivalent to the disputed domain name and neither has the Respondent obtained the Complainant’s authorization to use the Complainant’s trade mark in the disputed domain name. It says that the Complainant’s mark is distinctive and that the Respondent’s use of with the “i” replaced by an “l” amounts to a case of typosquatting. The Complainant submits that this is illegitimate and is not consistent with the Respondent having rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant submitted that it learned on July 8, 2020 that an email address featuring the ending “@technlsem.com” was used in a scam email in which the sender, pretending to be an employee of the Complainant, had instructed one of the Complainant’s customers to make a financial transfer to a Polish account not belonging to the Complainant. The Complainant noted that its customer picked up on the scam and reported it to the Complainant before suffering any loss and has submitted the relevant email correspondence in evidence. This says the Complainant amounts to the disputed domain name being used to host a fraudulent email address in aid of a phishing scam, which cannot be a legitimate use of the disputed domain name.

The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submission that the use of a fraudulent email address in aid of a phishing scam cannot amount to bona fide or legitimate activity for the purposes of this element of the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which case has not been rebutted by the Respondent. Accordingly, for this reason and as set out under Part C below, the Panel finds that the Complaint succeeds under this element of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The disputed domain name was registered on July 8, 2020, many years after the Complainant started using its TECHNISEM mark or registered it as a French trade mark. The Complainant’s mark appears to be a coined term which is quite distinctive and has no apparent meaning in the English language in the United States where the Respondent is based. In these circumstances it seems more likely than not that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s trade mark when it registered the disputed domain name and this inference is only reinforced by the Respondent’s use in its emails of the Complainant’s trade mark.

The use of the disputed domain name to facilitate an email and phishing scam as described under Part B above, amounts to use in bad faith. It is apparent, based on the correspondence put in evidence by the Complainant, that email addresses based on the disputed domain name were used in a quite elaborate scam together with a letter on fake letterhead belonging to the Complainant requesting payments to a Polish bank account. The Panel finds this to be clear evidence of use by the Respondent of the disputed domain name in bad faith.

Moreover, under paragraph 4(b) (ii) of the Policy there is evidence of registration and use in bad faith where a Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct. The Respondent appears to have registered the disputed domain name in order to falsely impersonate the Complainant in its email scam. Based on evidence provided by the Complainant from a Reverse Whois Lookup search it appears that the Respondent also owns numerous domain names based on well-reputed marks or the misspelling of such marks. As a result, the Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy are also made out in this case.

Accordingly, the Respondent has both registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith and the Complaint succeeds under this 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 <technlsem.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Alistair Payne
Sole Panelist
Date: October 8, 2020

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/