Wall Street Prep, Inc. v. V.Ravindhar / Financial Models
Claim Number: FA1805001786248
Complainant is Wall Street Prep, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Sean Detweiler of MBBP, Massachusetts, USA. Respondent is V.Ravindhar / Financial Models (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <wallstreetprep.co>, registered with BigRock Solutions Ltd.
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 11, 2018; the Forum received payment on May 11, 2018.
On May 15, 2018, BigRock Solutions Ltd confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <wallstreetprep.co> domain name is registered with BigRock Solutions Ltd and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. BigRock Solutions Ltd has verified that Respondent is bound by the BigRock Solutions Ltd 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 May 22, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 11, 2018 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@wallstreetprep.co. Also on May 22, 2018, 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 June 13, 2018 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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
Complainant states that it is a Massachusetts based company that does business in connection with providing educational training of financial modeling and valuation modeling in the field of finance and accounting. Complainant uses its WALL STREET PREP mark to promote its products and services and established rights in the mark through registration in the United States in 2005.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its WALL STREET PREP mark because it contains the mark in its entirety and merely adds the “.co” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the WALL STREET PREP mark. Further, Respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods and services of a legitimate noncommercial fair use of the domain name. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business and redirect internet users to Complainant’s website in order to trick customers into engaging Respondent rather than Complainant for similar services. Respondent also engages in typosquatting. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent is using the confusingly similar, disputed domain name in order to disrupt Complainant’s business and attract users to its website for commercial gain. Furthermore, Respondent engages in the practice of typosquatting for the purpose of diverting Internet users to Respondent’s website. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark WALL STREET PREP and uses it to market products and services for educational training of financial modeling and valuation modeling in the field of finance and accounting.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to 2005.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2017.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain name resolves to a web site that offers products and services that compete with those of Complainant.
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(f), 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 (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.”).
The disputed domain name is identical similar to Complainant’s WALL STREET PREP mark because it contains the mark in its entirety, minus the spaces, and adds the “.co” ccTLD (the country code for “Columbia”). Since Complainant uses the domain name <wallstreetprep.com> the disputed domain name is in effect a misspelled version of Complainant’s domain name. Precedent has it that additions of a ccTLD and omission of spaces are insufficient changes to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See CloudFlare, Inc. v. [Registrant], FA 1624251 (Forum Aug. 1, 2015) (holding, “The inclusion of a ccTLD does not alleviate the similarity between a mark and a disputed domain name as per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Basic Trademark S.A. v. Antares S.p.A, FA 1130680 (Forum Mar. 4, 2008) (“The <robedikappa.us> domain name is identical to the ROBE DI KAPPA mark. The only difference is the omission of the space between the words and the addition of the ccTLD “.us,” which does not significantly distinguish the domain name from the mark.”). Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: where a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Usama Ramzan, FA 1737750 (Forum July 26, 2017) (“We begin by noting that Complainant contends, and Respondent does not deny, that Respondent has not been commonly known by the <marlborocoupon.us> domain name, and that Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the MARLBORO mark in any way. Moreover, the pertinent WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the domain name only as “Usama Ramzan,” which does not resemble the domain name. On this record, we conclude that Respondent has not been commonly known by the challenged domain name so as to have acquired rights to or legitimate interests in it within the purview of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”). Here, the WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “V.Ravindhar.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Further, Respondent failed to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to its website for commercial gain. Respondent’s web site offers products and services which compete with those of Complainant. Use of a domain name to redirect internet users to Respondent’s competing webpage is a not bona fide offering of goods and services nor a legitimate noncommercial fair use according to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. josh greenly / All Access Tickets, FA1507001629217 (Forum August 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name as required under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to host a web page that featured links to services that competed with those of the complainant). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent failed to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business and create a strong likelihood of confusion by redirecting users to its own website that offers competing products and services. This is evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b) (iv). See OneWest Bank N.A. v. Matthew Foglia, FA1503001611449 (Forum Apr. 26, 2015) (holding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website which competed with the complainant was evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iv).
Furthermore, Respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith as Respondent engages in typosquatting: the disputed domain name differs from Complainant’s domain name only by the omission of the letter “m” in the top level domain (TLD). Registration of a disputed domain name that deliberately introduces typographical errors in the hopes of benefitting from the Internet users’ belief that respondent’s disputed domain name is affiliated with complainant’s mark may support a finding of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See, by analogy, Homer TLC, Inc. v. Artem Ponomarev, FA1506001623825 (Forum July 20, 2015) (“Finally, under this head of the Policy, it is evident that the <homededpot.com> domain name is an instance of typosquatting, which is the deliberate misspelling of the mark of another in a domain name, done to take advantage of common typing errors made by Internet users in entering into a web browser the name of an enterprise with which they would like to do business online. Typosquatting is independent evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of a domain name.”). Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith on this ground also.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wallstreetprep.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: June 13, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page