About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Nordic Waterproofing AB v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1245905149 / Name Redacted

Case No. D2020-0217

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Nordic Waterproofing AB, Sweden, represented by Ports Group AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1245905149, Canada / Name Redacted 1

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <matakl.com> is registered with Google LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 28, 2020. On January 28, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 29, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 31, 2020 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 February 4, 2020.

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 February 7, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 27, 2020. On February 18 and March 4, 2020, a third party contacted the Center regarding its identity in relation to the present proceedings. The Center acknowledged receipt of the email communication noting the third party concerns regarding the domain name. No formal Response was filed with the Center. Accordingly, on March 4, 2020, the Center informed the Parties that it will proceed to appoint a panel.

The Center appointed Felipe Claro as the sole panelist in this matter on March 23, 2020. 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, Nordic Waterproofing AB, is a limited company incorporated in Höganäs, Sweden. The Complainant is a part of the Nordic Waterproofing Group, which is one of Europe’s leading producers and suppliers of waterproofing products and services for buildings and infrastructure. With more than 1,000 employees worldwide, the company has evolved and grown into an international corporation with production facilities located in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden and with sales organizations in the Benelux, the United Kingdom, Norway, Poland and Germany. The Complainant uses the mark MATAKI to identify its products and its website.

The Complainant is the holder of several trademarks worldwide and among them the following:

- European Union Trade Mark no. 013428719, MATAKI, registered on May 26, 2015. Classes 17, 19, and 37.
- Norwegian trademark no. 280869, MATAKI, registered on March 12, 2015. Classes 17, 19, and 37.
- Swedish trademark no. 317872, MATAKI, registered on October 4, 1996. Classes 17, 19, and 37; and 263077, MATAKITEST, registered on December 23, 1994. Class 9.

The Complainant owns several domain names through their parent company, Nordic Waterproofing Group, reflecting the mark MATAKI, which are used to promote its goods and services.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on November 18, 2019. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. However, it has been used to send emails from an email address “[...]@matakl.com” in order to perpetrate a fraud on one of the Complainant’s customers, trying to obtain payment of false invoices.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant is the holder of several MATAKI trademarks worldwide. The disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks MATAKI coincide in the string of letters “m-a-t-a-k”. The only difference is the sixth and last letter, namely “i” in the Complainant’s trademarks and “l” in the domain name under dispute, which gives a confusingly similar perception to the customers.

The Respondent does not have any rights to the trademarks MATAKI or MATAKL, and the Complainant has several registered rights including the wording “mataki”.

The Respondent’s motivation in relation to the registration and use of the confusingly similar domain name was to capitalize and take advantage from the Complainant’s trademark rights, with the aim to unlawfully profit through the domain name use.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

In view of the lack of a suitable response filed by the Respondent as required under paragraph 5 of the Rules, under paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel is directed to decide this administrative proceeding based on the Complainant’s undisputed representations. In that regard, the Panel makes the following specific findings.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <matakl.com> substantially imitates the Complainant’s trademark MATAKI by substituting the letter “i” for the visually similar letter “l”. A minor difference of one letter between the signs does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity and is a clear example of typosquatting. The disputed domain name <matakl.com> is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark MATAKI. Furthermore, the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain “.com” is viewed as a standard registration requirement and may therefore be disregarded for the assessment of confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name.

Considering the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent does not have any rights to the trademark MATAKI.

The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant and the Complainant has not given the Respondent any permission to register the trademark MATAKI or similar as a domain name, nor is there any evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name <matakl.com>, which is currently inactive. The Respondent has not used, or prepared to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for any legitimate noncommercial or legitimate purpose. On the contrary, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to impersonate one of the Complainant’s employees and perpetrate fraud on one of its customers. The use of a domain name for illegal activity, such as phishing, impersonating or other types of fraud, can never lead to rights or legitimate interests of a respondent (section 2.13 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

Considering the above, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant’s trademarks MATAKI were registered well before the Respondent became the owner of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant has been using the MATAKI trademark for over 85 years and has been the registered owner of the trademark MATAKI for 26 years. It has been using the trademark long before the disputed domain name was registered. The Respondent was or should have been aware of the Complainant’s trademarks and business when registering the disputed domain name. For the reasons indicated in the next paragraph, the Panel is of the view that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark rights and, on balance, with the intention of taking advantage of such rights. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, “Dr. Martens” International Trading GmbH and “Dr. Maertens” Marketing GmbH v. Godaddy.com, WIPO Case No. D2017-0246.

The Respondent, without the Complainant’s knowledge or consent, has used the disputed domain name to impersonate an employee of the Complainant through the email “[...]@matakl.com” in order to perpetrate a fraud on one of its customers, trying to obtain payment of false invoices. The illegitimate email asked the customer to verify whether two specific invoices had been paid or not. The Respondent’s fraudulent behavior, and imitation of the Complainant’s business information, were further enhanced by the fact that the email contained the mark MATAKI as well as detailed and genuine business information, contact information and addresses of the Complainant and its employee. As indicated above, this is a clear case of bad faith.

It is clear for all the above that the Respondent’s motivation in relation to the registration and use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name was to capitalize and take advantage of the Complainant’s trademark rights, with the aim to unlawfully profit through this use.

In light of the Respondent’s fraudulent activities, as described above, a cease and desist letter was sent to the Respondent. The Respondent did not reply to the cease and desist letter and to the following reminders sent by the Complainant. The fact that the Respondent never answered the Complainants communications, and registered the disputed domain name with a privacy shield service and false contact details, impersonating a third party, are additional indicators that the Respondent acted in bad faith. In fact, the Respondent’s use of a privacy service provider to register the disputed domain name, leads to further attest bad faith (section 3.6 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).

Considering the above, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

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 name <matakl.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Felipe Claro
Sole Panelist
Date: April 20, 2020

1 As it appears, the Respondent has used the identity of a third party when registering the disputed domain name. In light of the potential identity theft, the Panel has redacted the Respondent’s name from this decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain name, which includes the name of the Respondent. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding, and has indicated Annex 1 to this decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST-12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788.

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/