WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge v. Zhe Zhang

Case No. D2018-1796

1. The Parties

The Complainant is The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge of Cambridge, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented by Stobbs IP Limited, United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Zhe Zhang of Xian, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain names <cambeidge.org>, <cambridgw.org>, <cambridhe.org>, <cambrisge.org>, <cambtidge.org>, <camrbidge.org>, and <camvridge.org> are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 7, 2018. On August 8, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On August 8, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 14, 2018 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on August 20, 2018.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 August 24, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 13, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 14, 2018.

The Center appointed Eduardo Machado as the sole panelist in this matter on October 2, 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 the Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge, Cambridge.

The Complainant holds trademark registrations for CAMBRIDGE in many jurisdictions around the world as well as a significant reputation from operating its educational institution for over 800 years.

The disputed domain names were registered on November 27, 2017, and are being used to host pay-per-click webpages.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant states that the disputed domain names are at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark CAMBRIDGE.

The Complainant also has a reputation and goodwill in the CAMBRIDGE trademark in the United Kingdom and abroad.

The Complainant affirms to have demonstrated to have rights in the mark CAMBRIDGE in accordance with the Policy.

The disputed domain names are very similar to the Complainant’s CAMBRIDGE trademarks and are clearly an intentional misspelling of the Complainant’s CAMBRIDGE trademark.

The Complainant uses the domain name <cambridge.org> for its main website and email since 2000, and for this reason the public would have come to associate <cambridge.org> with the Complainant, generating unregistered rights in “cambridge.org”.

Respondent has no rights or any legitimate interest in the domain names and has no trademark registrations or rights for CAMBTIDGE, CAMRBIDGE, CAMVRIDGE, CAMBEIDGE, CAMBRIDGW, CAMBRIDHE, CAMBRISGE, or CAMBRIDGE and the Complainant has not authorized such use.

The Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with a legitimate offering of goods/services, but rather to divert Internet users to third-party content via those links.

The disputed domain names were registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor and have been used in an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s web sites.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

To qualify for cancellation or transfer of the disputed domain name, the Complainant must prove each of the following elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, namely:

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

(ii) The 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

The Complainant owns various trademark registrations for the CAMBRIDGE trademark, in different jurisdictions, therefore holding rights in the CAMBRIDGE mark.

The disputed domain names change only one or two letters of the CAMBRIDGE trademark and add the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.org”.

This Panel notes that it has become a common practice for respondents to register domain names with minor spelling variations, a phenomenon which is commonly known as “typosquatting”.

The slight spelling variation does not prevent the disputed domain names from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.

Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has established the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorized, licensed or permitted the Respondent to use the trademark CAMBRIDGE and there is no evidence that the Respondent has been or is commonly known by the disputed domain names or is using them in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the trademark.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that none of the circumstances establishing rights or legitimate interests mentioned above applies. As stressed by many UDRP panels, in such a case, the burden of production then shifts to the respondent to rebut the complainant’s prima facie case.

By not submitting a Response, the Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could have demonstrated any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established element 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Considering the wide recognition of the Complainant’s trademarks, it is clear that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when it chose the disputed domain name.

As a matter of fact, when the disputed domain names were registered by the Respondent, the trademark CAMBRIDGE was already registered and widely used in connection to the Complainant’s activities. The Complainant has used the CAMRBIDGE trademark for hundreds of years.

It is clear that the disputed domain names are an example of typosquatting, which constitutes registration and use in bad faith, according to past UDRP panels (See Sanofi v. Marek Zdanowicz, WIPO Case No. D2016-2545 and Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Milen Radumilo, WIPO Case No. D2016-1926).

In this sense, the Panel verifies that the disputed domain names are typosquatting domains, as each of the disputed domain names is a close misspelling of the trademark CAMBRIDGE.

Furthermore, the disputed domain names (with the exception of <cambtidge.org>) resolve to “clickthrough” sites with links to content that includes a clear focus on education and the trademark CAMBRIDGE. Respondent uses the Complainant’s trademark CAMBRIDGE from the websites at these domains to direct Internet users to advertising content linked to other parties in the field of education.

Finally, the Panel concludes that the absence of a reply from the Respondent is an indication of bad faith in the present case.

Therefore, the Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is also satisfied.

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 names <cambeidge.org>, <cambridgw.org>, <cambridhe.org>, <cambrisge.org>, <cambtidge.org>, <camrbidge.org>, and <camvridge.org> be transferred to the Complainant.

Eduardo Machado
Sole Panelist
Date: October 16, 2018