WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Trustpilot A/S v. Marianne Gerritsen, Vimexx

Case No. D2021-1497

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Trustpilot A/S, Denmark, represented by Lewis Silkin LLP, United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Marianne Gerritsen, Vimexx, Netherlands.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <trustpliot.com> is registered with Key-Systems GmbH (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 13, 2021. On May 14, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 17, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 17, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on May 19, 2021.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 May 21, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 10, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 11, 2021.

The Center appointed Christian Gassauer-Fleissner as the sole panelist in this matter on June 17, 2021. 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 a global consumer review website founded in Denmark in 2007, with offices in New York, Denver, London, Copenhagen, Vilnius, Berlin and Melbourne. On March 23, 2021, the Complainant listed on the London Stock Exchange.

As of April 8, 2020, the Complainant’s core website, “www.trustpilot.com”, was ranked 433rd globally for Internet traffic and engagement and 28th in the United Kingdom. Consumers have posted over 120 million reviews on the Complainant’s website in relation to over 529,000 businesses.

The Complainant owns the following trademark registrations;

- European Union (“EU”)Trade Mark Registration No. 9937624, TRUSTPILOT, registered on December 8, 2011;
- EU Trade Mark Registration No. 17898455, TRUSTPILOT (logo), registered on September 5, 2018;
- Australian Trade Mark Registration No. 1650470, TRUSTPILOT, registered on August 14, 2015;
- Australian Trade Mark Registration No. 1926050, TRUSTPILOT (logo), registered on December 23, 2019;
- United States of America (“United States”) Trade Mark Registration No 5,956,496, TRUSTPILOT (logo), registered on January 7, 2020; and
- Unites States Trade Mark Registration No 4,240,324, TRUSTPILOT, registered on November 13, 2012.

The disputed domain name was registered on February 5, 2020. It leads to a website that reproduces the content of the Complainant’s website “www.trustpilot.com” in its entirety.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name takes the TRUSTPILOT trademark in its entirety, merely transposing the letters “l” and “i” to form the domain name, which leads to the disputed domain name being virtually identical to the Complainant’s rights.

The Complainant further asserts that, as far as he is aware, the Respondent does not own any registered rights in any trademarks which comprise part or all of the disputed domain name, nor is the Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name and the Complainant has not given its consent for the Respondent to use a virtually identical variation of its registered trademarks in a domain name registration. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent poses as the Complainant to provide a consumer review website, in direct conflict with the Complainant’s rights.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith in as far as it is designed to disrupt the Complainant’s business and as it deliberately misleads consumers into believing that the services provided on the Respondent’s website originate from the Complainant. The disputed domain name was pointed to an identical website to the Complainant’s, including the Complainant’s registered trademarks. Since the disputed domain name was registered nine years after the Complainant sought registered trademark protection for its TRUSTPILOT trademark in the EU, the Complainant submits that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s business. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent’s conduct bears all the hallmarks of typosquatting.

The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires that the Panel’s decision be made “on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”.

It has been a consensus view in previous UDRP decisions that a respondent’s default (i.e., failure to submit a response) would not by itself mean that the Complainant is deemed to have prevailed; a respondent’s default is not necessarily an admission that the complainant’s claims are true (see section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)).

A complainant must evidence each of the three elements required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to succeed on the complaint, namely that:

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

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark TRUSTPILOT, in which the Complainant has established rights through registration.

The disputed domain name consists of “trustpliot” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”.

The Respondent exchanged the letters “l” and “i” in the disputed domain name.

Domain names which consist of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark are considered to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark. This stems from the fact that the domain name contains sufficiently recognizable aspects of the relevant mark. Examples of such typos include the inversion of letters and numbers (see section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).

GTLDs are generally disregarded, when evaluating the identity or similarity of the Complainant’s mark to the disputed domain name under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, irrespective of any ordinary meaning that might be ascribed to the gTLD (see section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).

Accordingly, the Panel finds the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, UDRP panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. (see section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).

Based on the evidence provided by the Complainant, the Panel concludes that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and had in mind the Complainant’s TRUSTPILOT trademark when registering the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s distinctive trademark TRUSTPILOT, therefore most likely aims to attract Internet users searching for the Complainant’s domain name.

The Panel is further convinced, based on the Complainant’s undisputed contentions, that the Respondent has not made use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, especially, since the website to which the disputed domain name leads is an exact copy of the Complainant’s website.

The Respondent is neither commonly known by the disputed domain name nor making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant did not give its consent for the Respondent to use a virtually identical variation of its registered trademarks in a domain name registration.

The Complainant therefore made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests to which the Respondent failed to respond.

Accordingly, the Panel finds, that the Complainant satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that the Complainant’s services are prominently displayed on the Internet (rank 433rd globally for Internet). The fact that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark TRUSTPILOT, was registered several years after the registration of the Complainant’s trademark and points to a website that reproduces the Complainant’s website content in its entirety, in view of the Panel, demonstrates that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s TRUSTPILOT trademark when registering the disputed domain name.

Based on the evidence provided by the Complainant, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to disrupt the Complainant’s business and to further deliberately mislead consumers into believing that the services provided on the Respondent’s website originate from the Complainant. The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has no legitimate interest or bona fide use of the disputed domain name but was rather acting in bad faith.

It speaks even more for the bad faith of the Respondent that, based on the evidence provided by the Complainant, the Respondent registered 2,175 domains, among which many incorporate registered trademarks.

Furthermore, the Panel also notes that the Respondent provided false or incomplete contact information in the WhoIs register for the disputed domain name since the written notice on the Notification of Complaint dated May 21, 2021, could not be delivered, according to the e-mail correspondence between the Center and the postal courier DHL. This behavior supports the Respondent’s bad faith.

For these reasons, the Panel considers that the Respondent’s conduct constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 <trustpliot.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Christian Gassauer-Fleissner
Sole Panelist
Date: June 29, 2021