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

CPA Global Limited v. Dre Dre

Case No. D2018-0871

1. The Parties

The Complainant is CPA Global Limited of Jersey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented by Dawn Logan Keeffe, United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Dre Dre of Naples, Florida, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <cpagloball.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 April 18, 2018. On April 19, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 21, 2018, 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 April 30, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 20, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 22, 2018.

The Center appointed Jonas Gulliksson as the sole panelist in this matter on June 5, 2018. 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 an intellectual property asset management company, providing a range of software and legal administrative services to internal law departments/counsel and law firms.

The Complainant is the owner of several registered trademarks for the mark CPA GLOBAL, among others International Registration no. 992382 CPA GLOBAL, filed October 16, 2008, designated in inter alia the European Union and the United States of America for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 41, 42 and 45.

The disputed domain name was registered April 3, 2018 and resolves to an inactive website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant mainly alleges the following.

The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s trademark CPA GLOBAL. The disputed domain name also contains the additional letter “l”, which is an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s CPA GLOBAL trademark and is likely to be overlooked by anyone encountering the disputed domain name. This is particularly the case since the Complainant has utilised the domain name <cpaglobal.com> for a number of years as its primary website and it is likely that Internet users will mistakenly assume that the disputed domain name is the same as the Complainant’s <cpaglobal.com> domain.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not own any trademark rights to the CPA GLOBAL name, nor has it ever used the name CPA GLOBAL in good faith as a trademark. The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent. The Complainant has a substantial reputation within the intellectual property legal services marketing place. Accordingly, there is little doubt that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s use and reputation of its CPA GLOBAL trademark prior to registering the disputed domain name. By using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract customers of the Complainant, by utilising email addresses containing the disputed domain name so as to acquire information and financial payment from those customers by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source of those emails issued by the Respondent. This phishing exercise undertaken by the Respondent utilising the disputed domain name was commenced immediately following the registration of the disputed domain name on April 3, 2018. An abuse complaint was filed with the Registrar of the disputed domain name on April 15, 2018.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove all three of the following elements:

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

(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

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

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant is the proprietor of several trademark registrations for CPA GLOBAL, inter alia international registration no. 992382. The disputed domain name contains the trademark CPA GLOBAL in its entirety and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. It is well-established among UDRP panels that the gTLD is not distinguishing. The additional letter “l” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CPA GLOBAL trademark and that the first requirement of the Policy is fulfilled.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

In cases when a respondent fails to present a response, the complainant is still required to make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not proven otherwise. The Panel therefore finds the requirements of the second element of the Policy fulfilled.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant is the proprietor of registered trademarks which predate the disputed domain name and it is not probable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant or its trademarks. The circumstances presented by the Complainant and the submitted supporting evidence regarding attempted phishing with use of the disputed domain name supports a finding of bad faith registration and use. The Panel therefore finds that the third requirement of the Policy is fulfilled.

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 <cpagloball.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Jonas Gulliksson
Sole Panelist
Date: June 19, 2018

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/