WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Mecenat AB v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot / Alexander Kruglov

Case No. D2021-2793

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Mecenat AB, Sweden, represented by Ports Group AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States of America, / Alexander Kruglov, Russian Federation.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <mecenat.pro> is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 25, 2021. On August 25, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 26, 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 August 26, 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 August 27, 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 August 31, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 20, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 22, 2021.

The Center appointed Mario Soerensen Garcia as the sole panelist in this matter on September 28, 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 Mecenat AB, a Swedish company that offers an international student discount service that can verify 130 million students worldwide.
The Complainant owns several trademark registrations for MECENAT, including European Union trademark registration no. 005668521, classes 9, 35 and 36, granted on May 21, 2008.

The disputed domain name was registered on March 27, 2021, and resolves to a website currently unavailable.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant argues that the Respondent does not have any rights in the trademark MECENAT and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, it has not authorized the use of its trademark by the Respondent.

The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was used to make connections to the Complainant’s goods and services and to goods and services of competitors of the Complainant, as shown in Annex 5.

In addition, the Complainant mentions that it has the exclusive right to use the trademark MECENAT for advertising, which was registered years before the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not only present the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent also presents information on the website at the domain name relating to the Complainant’s protected goods and/or services and competitors to the Complainant.

The Complainant concludes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to commercially profit from misleading consumers searching for information about the Complainant’s business, which confirms the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as well as its registration and use in bad faith.

The Complainant informs that it sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent on April 23, 2021, to which the Respondent never replied.

Finally, the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

As per paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove 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 evidence demonstrates that the Complainant is the owner of registrations for the trademark MECENAT worldwide, which predate the registration of the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark MECENAT in its entirety and without the addition of any other expression that could possibly avoid confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. The suffix “.pro” is a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) which does not prevent confusing similarity. See, section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

The Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been proved by the Complainant, i.e., the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent has not submitted a response to the Complaint. There is no evidence that the Respondent has any authorization to use the Complainant’s trademark or to register domain names containing the Complainant’s trademark MECENAT. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.

There is no evidence that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, or that before any notice of the dispute the Respondent has made use of, or demonstrable preparations 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. Instead, the Complainant showed evidence that the disputed domain name was being used to mislead Internet users and that the Respondent has failed to offer any goods or services on its website other than pay-per-click links to third-party websites seemingly connected to the Complainant’s business area. The Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

On balance, the Panel therefore finds that the use of the disputed domain name, which incorporates the Complainant’s trademark, does not correspond to a bona fide use of the disputed domain name under the Policy.¹

For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied, i.e., the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The trademark MECENAT is registered by the Complainant in several jurisdictions and has been used since a long time. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark MECENAT and the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant’s MECENAT trademark is distinctive and has been registered and used for a long time. Thus, a domain name that comprises such a trademark is suggestive of the registrant’s bad faith. In addition, the fact that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a pay-per-click website with third-party links related to the same goods and services offered by the Complainant, serves as an additional evidence of the registration of the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel further finds that the “.pro” gTLD (being meant for use by professionals), does not provide any distinctiveness to the disputed domain name. On the contrary, since the Complainant’s goods and services are focused on students, the gTLD “.pro” may give the idea that the corresponding website belongs to or is authorized by the Complainant and offers discount services for professionals.

This Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to cause confusion with the Complainant’s trademark by misleading Internet users to believe that its website belongs to or is associated with the Complainant.

Moreover, the Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complainant’s allegations and also ignored the cease and desist letter sent by the Complainant on April 23, 2021.

According to the panel’s decision in The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, WIPO Case No. D2009-0610, “[t]he failure of the Respondent to respond to the Complaint further supports an inference of bad faith”.

This Panel finds that the Respondent’s attempt of taking undue advantage of the Complainant’s trademark MECENAT for commercial gain as described in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy has been demonstrated.

For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied, i.e., the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

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 <mecenat.pro> be transferred to the Complainant.

Mario Soerensen Garcia
Sole Panelist
Date: October 8, 2021

¹ The Panel notes that the term “mecenat” may in certain languages relate to patronage. In this regard, see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.10, stating inter alia: “[i]n order to find rights or legitimate interests in a domain name based on its dictionary meaning, the domain name should be genuinely used, or at least demonstrably intended for such use, in connection with the relied-upon dictionary meaning and not to trade off third-party trademark rights”.