We just wrote about a guy who bought a domain name for $31,000, let it drop and lost a UDRP to regain control.
This time Intrac Group AB of Stockholm, just won the rights to the domain name intrac.com, from intrac.biz, who said they paid $21,500 for the domain.
Here are the relevant facts and findings by the one member panel
The Complainant is the registered owner of a trademark for INTRAC in Sweden (Trademark No. 0372029), filed on July 5, 2004 and registered on May 6, 2005.
The Complainant operates websites at various domain names, including intrac.se and intrac.ee
The Complainant alleges that up until February 2013, when the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent, marketing was mostly done under the domain name intrac.com.
The Complainant contends that the domain name intrac.com had been registered by the Complainant since January 30, 2004, but, due to a mistake in early 2013, the fee for re-registration was not timely paid.
The Complainant contends that it tried to remedy the mistake as soon as it noticed that the fee was not paid but the Respondent had already registered the disputed domain name.
The Complainant sent the Respondent a letter on May 8, 2013, two weeks after the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent, and objected to the registration.
The Respondent did not respond.
The Complainant sent a follow-up letter to the Respondent on August 22, 2013.
The Respondent failed to respond.
There appears to be two different registrants around the time of the Complaint filing.
The original registrant appears to have registered the domain name when the Complainant’s payment for the registration lapsed.
The original registrant did not respond to the Complaint.
Instead, when receiving a service copy of the Complaint on October 24, 2013 from the Complainant, he informed the Complainant that he had “already sold the domain at huge money to broker.”
The Respondent (second registrant) purportedly purchased the disputed domain name for USD 21,500.
Prior to making the purchase, the Respondent purportedly conducted a trademark search using the “iNEED Brand” website to determine if the name “intrac” was registered to anyone.
The Respondent contends that the results of that search showed that the name was not registered and provided a screenshot of the search result.
The Respondent contends that he has retained the services of Information Technology Links Col, LTD (“ITL”) to create a website for his company using the disputed domain name.
The Respondent expects the website to be completed by approximately February 14, 2014.
There is no evidence in this case to support a finding that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
In this case, the Complainant has established a strong prima facie case against the Respondent.
The Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and, further, there is no evidence in the case file that would demonstrate that the Respondent had such rights or legitimate interests.
For example, there is no evidence that the Respondent is known under the disputed domain name or “intrac”.
The disputed domain name has no known meaning in English or Korean, which is the purported language of the Respondent.
The Complainant has no relationship whatsoever with the Respondent and has never authorized the Respondent to use the INTRAC word mark. Moreover, the Respondent has not offered any evidence to rebut the Complainant’s contention that at the time the Complaint was filed on October 24, 2013, the disputed domain name had not been in use and was offered for sale at an unreasonable price.
Accordingly, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Panel finds under the circumstances that the Complainant has established that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Bad faith can be inferred if the Respondent was aware or should have been aware of the Complainant’s mark and claims of rights thereto (particularly in view of the Complainant’s use of its mark on the Internet). Here, given the timing of the registration, the Panel finds it highly doubtful that the Respondent would have registered the domain name without having knowledge of the Complainant.
The registration of a domain name that is similar to a distinctive trademark by the Respondent, when the Respondent has no relationship to that mark, is also sufficient evidence of bad faith
Moreover, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name for valuable consideration as described in paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, and thus in bad faith.
This is based on (i) evidence from the prior owner that the Respondent is a “broker” and (ii) that the Respondent failed to provide any evidence to show otherwise (e.g., it failed to prove that it hired ITL, and it failed to show any connection between its business and the name “intrac”). This behavior evidences bad faith.
A further circumstance indicative of bad faith indicative of bad faith is that the disputed domain name currently resolves to a website at “www.intrac.biz”, apparently an unrelated company in Nevada, United States of America.
The Panel finds that this use is clearly an attempt to forestall an unfavorable result in this proceeding.
For the above reasons, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name “has been registered and is being used in bad faith” by the Respondent.
