Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2012-1809
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 22:11:02+00:00

Document:
The Complainant is Hemmings Motor News Inc. of Vermont, United States of America, represented by Sabin Bermant & Gould, LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is Paul Walters, with address in Lilburn, US, Italy for the disputed domain name <hemmings-payments.com>, and in Lilburn, United States of America for the disputed domain name <hemmings-classifieds.com>.
The disputed domain name <hemmings-classifieds.com> is registered with Click Registrar, Inc. d/b/a publicdomainregistry.com.
The disputed domain name <hemmings-payments.com> is registered with Tucows Inc.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 11, 2012. On September 11, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars Tucows Inc. and Click Registrar, Inc. d/b/a publicdomainregistry.com requests for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On September 11 and 12, 2012, the Registrars Tucows Inc. and Click Registrar, Inc. d/b/a publicdomainregistry.com respectively transmitted by email to the Center their verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details in each case. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint on September 19, 2012.
In accordance with paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a) of the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 20, 2012. In accordance with paragraph 5(a) of the Rules, the due date for Response was October 10, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 11, 2012.
The disputed domain names were registered on August 5, 2012 (<hemmings-payments.com>) and August 9, 2012 (<hemmings-classifieds.com>) and at the date of the Complaint were used to link to websites that copied the look and feel of the Complainant’s website at “www.hemmings.com” and were used to carry out phishing attacks.
(1) The Complainant states that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the HEMMINGS Marks as they consists of the Complainant’s trademark HEMMINGS and the generic words “payments” and “classifieds”, respectively.
(2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, as the Complainant never granted the Respondent the right to use or register the HEMMINGS mark, either in connection with a domain name registration or a bona fide offering of goods and services or for any other reason, and as the Respondent had no legitimate use or right to use the HEMMINGS brand prior to the registration of the disputed domain names.
(3) The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant states that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names primarily for use in connection with phishing attacks on the Complainant’s customers, that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names in order to purposefully confuse and defraud consumers, and that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names using intentionally false and misleading registration and contact information.
The disputed domain names consist of the term “hemmings”, which is included in the HEMMINGS Marks, and are confusingly similar to such trademarks.
Secondly, the fact that the disputed domain names include the generic terms “payments” and “classifieds”, which are not included in the HEMMINGS Marks, does not hinder a finding of confusing similarity under the Policy either. It is also established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark may be confusingly similar to such trademark for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of common or generic words, such as “payments” or “classifieds” (cf. Comerica Incorporated v. Comerica Merchant Services, WIPO Case No. D2012-1678; The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v. rbspayments, NAF Claim No. 0728805; OLX, Inc. v. Y. K. P., WIPO Case No. D2011-1491; Denver Newspaper Agency v. MediaNews Group c/o Host Master, NAF Claim No. 1294673).
The Complainant has substantiated that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that the Complainant has fulfilled its obligations under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
The Respondent did not deny these assertions in any way and therefore failed to prove any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Based on the evidence before the Panel, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names was not bona fide under the Policy. The Respondent used the disputed domain names in connection with phishing activities. Such use does not constitute rights or legitimate interests under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names under paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(c) of the Policy.
The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names with full knowledge of the Complainant and thus in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. The name “Hemmings” is highly distinctive and has been used by the Complainant in connection with its publications for many decades. Given that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names to use them in connection with websites that copied the look and feel of the Complainant’s website at “www.hemmings.com” and which were used to carry out phishing attacks, it is almost inconceivable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names without knowledge of the Complainant.
As to bad faith use, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were used by the Respondent in an intentional attempt to benefit from the goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark for financial gain by creating a slavish copy of the Complainant’s website with the likely purpose of collecting the data of people reaching such website (so-called “phishing”, cf. Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Nicolas Pete, WIPO Case No. DBZ2009-0001; Banca Intesa S.p.A. v. Moshe Tal, WIPO Case No. D2006-0228; Grupo Financiero Inbursa, S.A. de C.V. v. inbuirsa, WIPO Case No. D2006-0614; Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v. Bashar Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2007-0031; Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel and Crédit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. Trabaja Jayam, Zeb Fi Tarmatek, WIPO Case No. DLC2009-0002).
Therefore, the Respondent has also been using the disputed domain names in bad faith and the Complainant has thus satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy as well.
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 <hemmings-classifieds.com> and <hemmings-payments.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.