À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

E2Interactive, Inc. v. Jennifer Hart / Donna Burton

Case No. D2017-1624

1. The Parties

Complainant is E2Interactive, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America ("US" or "United States"), represented by Bates & Bates LLM, United States.

Respondent is Jennifer Hart of Decatur, Georgia, United States / Donna Burton of Greensboro, North Carolina, United States.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <onevaniilla.net> and <onevanillagiftcard.com> 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 August 18, 2017. On August 21, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On August 22, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing Respondent's 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 23, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 12, 2017. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent's default on September 13, 2017.

The Center appointed Sandra A. Sellers as the sole panelist in this matter on September 24, 2017. 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

Complainant provides pre-paid debit and stored value card services through its ONE VANILLA registered mark, including United States Trademark Registration No. 4050400, registered on November 1, 2011. Complainant owns registered marks for ONE VANILLA, VANILLA GIFT CARD, and related marks and pending applications throughout the world. Complainant also owns the domain names <onevanilla.com> and <vanillaprepaid.com>, through which it offers its cards and services.

The disputed domain names, <onevaniilla.net> and <onevanillagiftcard.com>, were registered on September 26, 2016 and October 4, 2016, respectively.

Prior to August 16, 2017, <onevanillagiftcard.com> automatically linked to <onevaniilla.com>, a domain name not the subject of this administrative proceeding. The website to which the domain name <onevaniilla.com> resolved displayed an exact copy of Complainant's website, "www.onevanilla.com". On August 16, 2017, <onevanillagiftcard.com> began to re-route to <onevaniilla.net> instead of to <onevaniilla.com>, and the website to which <onevaniilla.net> resolved displayed an exact copy of Complainant's website, "www.onevanilla.com". As of August 17, 2017, <onevanillagiftcard.com> had been suspended and no longer linked to <onevaniilla.net>., but the website at the disputed domain name <onevaniilla.net> is still a copy of Complainant's website, "www.onevanilla.com".

Complainant attempted numerous times to have the websites at the disputed domain name <onevanillagiftcard.com> and the domain name <onevaniilla.com> taken down. Even when successful, the websites were immediately restored with a different web hosting service, and the domain name <onevaniilla.com> was replaced with the disputed domain name <onevaniilla.net>.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts that it has rights in the ONE VANILLA mark. It contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. The only difference between Complainant's mark and the disputed domain name <onevaniilla.net> is the misspelling of the mark in the disputed domain name. The only difference between Complainant's mark and the disputed domain name <onevanillagiftcard.com> is the inclusion of the word "giftcard". Complainant further alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions.

6. Preliminary Issue: Consolidation

Although neither the Policy nor the Rules explicitly provides for the consolidation of multiple respondents, as reflected in the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 4.11.2, "[w]here a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties" and "[p]rocedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration".

In the present administrative proceeding, the Panel notes the following circumstances:

- There are similarities in the WhoIs records for the registrant of the disputed domain name <onevanillagiftcard.com> and the domain name <onevaniilla.com>.

- The website to which the disputed domain name <onevaniilla.net> resolves is a copy of the website to which the domain name <onevaniilla.com> resolved.

- The disputed domain name <onevanillagiftcard.com> redirects to the disputed domain name <onevaniilla.net>.

- The disputed domain names <onevanillagiftcard.com> and <onevaniilla.net> are registered with the same Registrar, use the same web hosting service, and target Complainant.

- The Respondent has neither submitted a response nor otherwise participated in this administrative proceeding.

In view of the foregoing, the Panel finds on the balance that the disputed domain names appear to be subject to common control and the consolidation would be procedurally efficient and fair and equitable to the Parties. Additionally, the Panel notes that the named respondents are referred to collectively as "Respondent" throughout the Decision.

7. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest a respondent of a domain name, a complainant must demonstrate each of the following:

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

(ii) 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

To satisfy paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights.

As set forth above, Complainant owns various trademark and service mark registrations for the ONE VANILLA mark. Both disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's ONE VANILLA mark, as both contain Complainant's ONE VANILLA mark in its entirety. The only difference between Complainant's mark and the disputed domain name <onevanillagiftcard.com> is the addition of the common words "gift" and "card". Numerous previous UDRP decisions have held that the addition of a common word does not distinguish a disputed domain name from a complainant's mark or preclude a finding of confusing similarity. See, e.g., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2000-0662. Additionally, the disputed domain name <onevaniilla.net> is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because the misspelled mark remains the dominant or principal component of the domain name. Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington, WIPO Case No. D2002-0775.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the ONE VANILLA mark and that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Because it is generally difficult for a complainant to prove the fact that a respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, previous UDRP panels have found it sufficient for a complainant to make a prima facie showing of its assertion where there has been no response.

Complainant has exclusive rights in the ONE VANILLA mark and has not authorized Respondent to register and use the disputed domain names <onevaniilla.net> and <onevanillagiftcard.com>. Respondent is not affiliated with or related to Complainant, nor is Respondent licensed or authorized to use the ONE VANILLA mark. Respondent is not known under the mark. Respondent has made no showing that it has any rights or legitimate interests in using the disputed domain names or makes a bona fide offering of goods or services using the disputed domain names. On the evidence before the Panel, Respondent does not appear to make any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.

The Panel is satisfied that Complainant has made a prima facie showing of Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

Respondent is in default, and has not provided any evidence in its own favor.

The Panel finds that the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and thus Complainant meets the second criterion of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that:

"for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

[…]

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

(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location."

This list is not exhaustive.

It is difficult to conceive that Respondent did not know of Complainant's mark when it registered the disputed domain names. As set forth above, the ONE VANILLA products and services are protected by various US and international trademark registrations. Complainant's registration and use of the ONE VANILLA mark for its products and services occurred before Respondent registered the disputed domain names <onevanilagiftcard.com> and <onevaniilla.net>. Based on these facts, this Panel infers that Respondent was aware or must have been aware of Complainant's mark when Respondent registered the disputed domain names, and therefore registered them in bad faith. See, e.g., Jupiters Limited v. Aaron Hall, WIPO Case No. D2000-0574, in which the panel found it "inevitable that [r]espondent registered the domain names in full knowledge of [c]omplainant's rights and interests".

It appears that Respondent has engaged in "phishing", which constitutes bad faith, since it is intended to steal valuable information and money. "Phishing is the criminally fraudulent process of attempting to acquire sensitive information such as usernames, passwords and credit card details by masquerading as a trustworthy entity in an electronic communication. Phishing … often directs users to enter details at a fake website whose look and feel are almost identical to the legitimate one." Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Daniel Delcore, WIPO Case No. DLC2009-0001.

Respondent blatantly copied Complainant's entire website, including Complainant's mark, and displayed it on the pages to which the disputed domain names reverted. This is incontrovertible evidence that Respondent intended to disrupt Complainant's business and to divert web traffic intended for Complainant by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website or location or of a product or service on Respondent's website or location. See Telcel, C.A. v jerm and Jhonattan Ramirez, WIPO Case No. D2002-0309. Thus, Respondent has used Complainant's mark in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and thus Complainant meets the third criterion of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

8. 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 <onevaniilla.net> and <onevanillagiftcard.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Sandra A. Sellers
Sole Panelist
Date: October 8, 2017

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/fr/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/podcasts/ https://www.wipo.int/news/fr/