Microsoft Corporation v. zaberis / zaberis
Claim Number: FA1507001631367
Complainant is Microsoft Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Molly Buck Richard of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is zaberis / zaberis (“Respondent”), South Korea.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <micrasoft.com>, <micrisoft.com>, <microscoft.com>, <microsftoffice.com>, <microso.com>, <microsoftofficeoutlook.com>, <microsoftproject.com>, <microsoftsam.com>, <microsoftupdates.com>, <microsoftupgrades.com>, <microsoftworks.com>, <micrsoftoffice.com>, <mircosoftoffice.com>, <mircrosoftword.com>, <msnlatinoamerica.com>, <msnmessenge.com>, <netmsn.com>, <support-microsoft.com>, <windowsmicrosoft.com>, <wwwhootmail.com> and <wwwmicrosoftword.com>, registered with Pdr Ltd. D/B/A Publicdomainregistry.Com.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 30, 2015; the Forum received payment on July 30, 2015.
On July 31, 2015, Pdr Ltd. D/B/A Publicdomainregistry.Com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <micrasoft.com>, <micrisoft.com>, <microscoft.com>, <microsftoffice.com>, <microso.com>, <microsoftofficeoutlook.com>, <microsoftproject.com>, <microsoftsam.com>, <microsoftupdates.com>, <microsoftupgrades.com>, <microsoftworks.com>, <micrsoftoffice.com>, <mircosoftoffice.com>, <mircrosoftword.com>, <msnlatinoamerica.com>, <msnmessenge.com>, <netmsn.com>, <support-microsoft.com>, <windowsmicrosoft.com>, <wwwhootmail.com> and <wwwmicrosoftword.com> domain names are registered with Pdr Ltd. D/B/A Publicdomainregistry.Com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Pdr Ltd. D/B/A Publicdomainregistry.Com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Pdr Ltd. D/B/A Publicdomainregistry.Com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On August 4, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 24, 2015 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@micrasoft.com, postmaster@micrisoft.com, postmaster@microscoft.com, postmaster@microsftoffice.com, postmaster@microso.com, postmaster@microsoftofficeoutlook.com, postmaster@microsoftproject.com, postmaster@microsoftsam.com, postmaster@microsoftupdates.com, postmaster@microsoftupgrades.com, postmaster@microsoftworks.com, postmaster@micrsoftoffice.com, postmaster@mircosoftoffice.com, postmaster@mircrosoftword.com, postmaster@msnlatinoamerica.com, postmaster@msnmessenge.com, postmaster@netmsn.com, postmaster@support-microsoft.com, postmaster@windowsmicrosoft.com, postmaster@wwwhootmail.com, postmaster@wwwmicrosoftword.com. Also on August 4, 2015, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On August 28, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
(i) Complainant has rights in the MICROSOFT, WINDOWS, MSN and HOTMAIL marks through various registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Respondent’s <micrasoft.com>, <micrisoft.com>, <microscoft.com>, <microsftoffice.com>, <microso.com>, <microsoftofficeoutlook.com>, <microsoftproject.com>, <microsoftsam.com>, <microsoftupdates.com>, <microsoftupgrades.com>, <microsoftworks.com>, <micrsoftoffice.com>, <mircosoftoffice.com>, <mircrosoftword.com>, <msnlatinoamerica.com>, <msnmessenge.com>, <netmsn.com>, <support-microsoft.com>, <windowsmicrosoft.com>, <wwwhootmail.com>, and <wwwmicrosoftword.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks because each contains one or more of Complainant’s marks, or else a misspelling thereof, altered by only the additions of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com,” and various descriptive or generic terms, or else meaningless alterations such as “www” or hyphens.
(ii) Respondent is not commonly known by any of the disputed domain names because available WHOIS information lists the Registrant for each domain as “zaberis.” Respondent fails to use the domains to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the <microsoftupdates.com>, <support-microsoft.com>, and <wwwmicrosoftword.com> domain names resolve to inactive pages, while the rest resolve to parked pages containing unrelated hyperlinks. Additionally, several of the disputed domains constitute typosquatting.
(iii) Respondent uses the disputed domain names in bad faith because the resolving website for the <microsoftupdates.com>, <support-microsoft.com>, and <wwwmicrosoftword.com> domain names constitute inactive holdings, while the other domain names resolve to parked pages containing links to unrelated services, from which Respondent presumably collects referral fees. Respondent registered the domain names in bad faith because it did so with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MICROSOFT, WINDOWS, MSN and HOTMAIL marks. Additionally, Respondent’s typosquatting behavior provides further evidence of bad faith registration.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel notes that the disputed domains were created on the following dates:
<micrasoft.com> October 10, 2004
<micrisoft.com> April 11, 2004
<microscoft.com> September 30, 2006
<microsftoffice.com> September 13, 2004
<microso.com> October 8, 2006
<microsoftofficeoutlook.com> October 10, 2006
<microsoftproject.com> December28, 2001
<microsoftsam.com> October 6, 2006
<microsoftupdates.com> November 30, 2003
<microsoftupgrades.com> September 30, 2006
<microsoftworks.com> November 30, 2003
<micrsoftoffice.com> September 13, 2004
<mircosoftoffice.com> November 27, 2005
<mircrosoftword.com> October 6, 2006
<msnlatinoamerica.com> October 8, 2006
<msnmessenge.com> October 10, 2006
<netmsn.com> June 14, 2005
<support-microsoft.com> September 16, 2010
<windowsmicrosoft.com> November 18, 2006
<wwwhootmail.com> November 14, 2005
<wwwmicrosoftword.com> November 17, 2010
Complainant established that it had rights in the marks contained in the disputed domain names. Each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to Complainant’s respective protected mark.
Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Complainant alleges it has rights in each of the MICROSOFT, MSN, WINDOWS and HOTMAIL marks through registration with the USPTO. Complainant has provided evidence of the MICROSOFT registration in Exhibit D (e.g. Reg. No. 1,200,236, registered July 6,1982), MSN registration in Exhibit G (e.g. Reg. No. 2,153,763, registered April 28, 1998), WINDOWS registration in Exhibit I (Reg. No. 1,872,264, registered January 10, 1995) and HOTMAIL registration in Exhibit J (Reg. No. 2,165,601, registered June 16, 1998). The Panel notes that each of the MICROSOFT, MSN, and WINDOWS marks is also registered in Korea, where Respondent is located. Past panels have found that registration with the USPTO suffices to demonstrate rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PENTIUM, CENTRINO and INTEL INSIDE marks by registering the marks with the USPTO). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the MICROSOFT, MSN, WINDOWS and HOTMAIL marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks because each contains one or more of Complainant’s marks, or else a misspelling thereof, altered by only the additions of the gTLD “.com,” and various descriptive or generic terms, or else meaningless alterations such as “www” or hyphens.
Complainant contends that each of the <micrasoft.com>, <micrisoft.com>, <microscoft.com>, and <microso.com> domain names are mere misspellings of the MICROSOFT mark. Past panels have found that mere misspellings of a mark in the creation of a domain name leads to a domain name confusingly similar to the mark. See Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s marks).
Complainant urges that the <microsftoffice.com> and <micrsoftoffice.com> domain names are mere misspellings of the MICROSFT mark combined with the word “office,” and that the <microsoftofficeoutlook.com>, <microsoftproject.com>, <microsoftsam.com>, <microsoftupdates.com>, <microsoftupgrades.com>, <microsoftworks.com>, <mircosoftoffice.com>, <mircrosoftword.com>, <msnlatinoamerica.com>, <msnmessenge.com>, and <netmsn.com> domain names each contain the MICROSOFT or MSN along with words such as “outlook,” “project,” “sam,” “updates,” “upgrades,” “works,” “word,” latino,” “america,” “messenge,” and “net.” Complainant argues that each of these words is either a generic term, or else a term that describes Complainant’s business operations in conjunction with the MICROSOFT or MSN marks. Past panels have found that adding generic or descriptive terms to a mark does not suffice to distinguish a domain name and the mark. See Am. Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA 257901 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2004) (finding the respondent’s <amextravel.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMEX mark because the “mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate” a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Complainant further alleges that the <wwwmicrosoftword.com> domain name merely contains the MICROSOFT mark, along with a generic or descriptive term and the added letters “www,” and that the <wwwhootmail.com> domain is merely a misspelling of the HOTMAIL mark combined with the letters “www.” Past panels have found that adding “www” to a mark in the creation of a domain name takes advantage of typing errors, and therefore does nothing to prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See Bank of Am. Corp. v. InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s domain name <wwwbankofamerica.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered trademark BANK OF AMERICA because it “takes advantage of a typing error (eliminating the period between the www and the domain name) that users commonly make when searching on the Internet”).
Complainant argues that the <support-microsoft.com> domain name is made up of the MICROSOFT mark combined with the descriptive word “support” and a hyphen. Past panels have found that adding hyphens is irrelevant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 1, 2003) (“[T]he addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Complainant also contends that the <windowsmicrosoft.com> domain name is simply a combination of Complainant’s MICROSOFT and WINDOWS marks. Past panels have found confusing similarity in similar instances of combining marks. See McGraw-Hill Co., Inc. v. Umbeke Membe, FA 1223759 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 29, 2008) (finding that the <glencoemcgrawhill.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s GLENCOE and MCGRAW-HILL marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Additionally, each disputed domain name contains the gTLD “.com,” which panels have found irrelevant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See AOL Inc. v. Morgan, FA 1349260 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 4, 2010) (concluding that the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark). Therefore, the Panel finds that each of Respondent’s domain names is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant alleges that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names because of Respondent’s identity ascertainable from WHOIS information and because Respondent is not authorized, or otherwise permitted, by Complainant to use any of the MICROSOFT, MSN, HOTMAIL or WINDOWS marks. The Panel notes that the WHOIS information lists “zaberis” as Registrant and that Respondent has failed to provide further evidence to indicate being commonly known by any of the domain names. Past panels have found such a lack of evidence sufficient to show that a respondent is not commonly known by a domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant alleges that Respondent fails to use each of the <micrasoft.com>, <micrisoft.com>, <microscoft.com>, <microsftoffice.com>, <microso.com>, <microsoftofficeoutlook.com>, <microsoftproject.com>, <microsoftsam.com>, <microsoftupgrades.com>, <microsoftworks.com>, <micrsoftoffice.com>, <mircosoftoffice.com>, <mircrosoftword.com>, <msnlatinoamerica.com>, <msnmessenge.com>, <netmsn.com>, <windowsmicrosoft.com>, and <wwwhootmail.com> domain names to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because each domain’s resolving website contains a parked page with links to third-party products or services unrelated to Complainant. Complainant has provided screenshots of each resolving website in Exhibit K. Past panels have found that using a domain to host unrelated links shows a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) by using the disputed domain name to operate a website featuring links to goods and services unrelated to the complainant). As the Panel finds Complainant’s evidence sufficient, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c) (iii).
Complainant alleges that Respondent fails to use the <microsoftupdates.com>, <support-microsoft.com>, and <wwwmicrosoftword.com> domains to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because each domain’s resolving website constitutes an inactive holding. Complainant has provided evidence of this failure to use the domains in Exhibit L. Past panels have found that a failure to use a disputed domain name is sufficient to show a failure to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). As the Panel finds Complainant’s evidence sufficient, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the domain names to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Complainant also alleges that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <micrasoft.com>, <micrisoft.com>, <microscoft.com>, <microso.com>, and <wwwhootmail.com> domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) because each domain name constitutes typosquatting. Past panels have found that typosquatting provides evidence sufficient to find a lack of rights and legitimate interests in a domain name. See Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration Philippines, FA 877979 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 20, 2007) (concluding that by registering the <microssoft.com> domain name, the respondent had “engaged in typosquatting, which provides additional evidence that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant alleges that Respondent uses each of the <micrasoft.com>, <micrisoft.com>, <microscoft.com>, <microsftoffice.com>, <microso.com>, <microsoftofficeoutlook.com>, <microsoftproject.com>, <microsoftsam.com>, <microsoftupgrades.com>, <microsoftworks.com>, <micrsoftoffice.com>, <mircosoftoffice.com>, <mircrosoftword.com>, <msnlatinoamerica.com>, <msnmessenge.com>, <netmsn.com>, <windowsmicrosoft.com>, and <wwwhootmail.com> domain names in bad faith because the resolving websites contain parked pages, hosting links to products or services unrelated to Complainant. Complainant has provided evidence of this use in Exhibit K. Complainant urges that Respondent presumably receives referral fees for this practice. Past panels have found that hosting links in exchange for referral fees constitutes bad faith use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. utahhealth, FA 697821 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2006) (holding that the registration and use of a domain name confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark to direct Internet traffic to a commercial “links page” in order to profit from click-through fees or other revenue sources constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). As the Panel finds such behavior by Respondent here, the Panel finds that Respondent uses the domains in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant makes no arguments specifically enumerated by Policy ¶ 4(b) that the <microsoftupdates.com>, <support-microsoft.com>, and <wwwmicrosoftword.com> domain names are used in bad faith. However, panels have found that Policy ¶ 4(b) is meant to be illustrative, but not exhaustive. See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“[T]he examples [of bad faith] in Paragraph 4(b) are intended to be illustrative, rather than exclusive.”).
Complainant does allege that Respondent uses the <microsoftupdates.com>, <support-microsoft.com>, and <wwwmicrosoftword.com> domain names in bad faith because each domain resolves to an inactive webpage. Complainant has provided evidence of this use in Exhibit L.
The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (finding that in considering whether the passive holding of a domain name, following a bad faith registration of it, satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii), the panel must give close attention to all the circumstances of the respondent’s behavior, and a remedy can be obtained under the Policy only if those circumstances show that the respondent’s passive holding amounts to acting in bad faith.). See also DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s [failure to make an active use] of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
The particular circumstances of this case that the Panel has considered are:
i)Complainant’s MICROSOFT trademark has a good reputation and is widely known, as evidenced by the fact that Complainant had a long and well established reputation in connection with the provision of software and other goods and services at the time of Respondent’s registration, and ii) Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the disputed domain names. As the Panel finds such a failure to make an active use here, the Panel finds that Respondent uses the domains in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant alleges that Respondent registered all of the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MICROSOFT, WINDOWS, MSN and HOTMAIL marks based on the specific domain names chosen and the number of domains at issue. Complainant contends that its marks are famous, such that Respondent’s behavior clearly shows actual knowledge. Past panels have found that when respondents have actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark, the registration of a confusingly similar domain name is done in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was “well-aware” of the complainant’s YAHOO! mark at the time of registration). As the Panel infers due to the well-known status of Complainant’s marks and the use manner of the relevant disputed domain names by Respondent that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the marks at the time of registration, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Additionally, Complainant alleges that Respondent registered the <micrasoft.com>, <micrisoft.com>, <microscoft.com>, <microso.com>, and <wwwhootmail.com> domain names in bad faith because it has engaged in typosquatting. Complainant urges that these domain names take advantage of common typographical errors in its MICROSOFT and HOTMAIL marks. Past panels have found typosquatting to provide evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Internet Movie Database, Inc. v. Temme, FA 449837 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 24, 2005) (“Respondent's registration of the domain names in dispute constitutes bad faith because the domain names are merely typosquatted versions of the [complainant’s] IMDB mark.). As the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting, the Panel finds Respondent registered the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <micrasoft.com>, <micrisoft.com>, <microscoft.com>, <microsftoffice.com>, <microso.com>, <microsoftofficeoutlook.com>, <microsoftproject.com>, <microsoftsam.com>, <microsoftupdates.com>, <microsoftupgrades.com>, <microsoftworks.com>, <micrsoftoffice.com>, <mircosoftoffice.com>, <mircrosoftword.com>, <msnlatinoamerica.com>, <msnmessenge.com>, <netmsn.com>, <support-microsoft.com>, <windowsmicrosoft.com>, <wwwhootmail.com> and <wwwmicrosoftword.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist
Dated: September 2, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page