Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-103175

The Complainant states that public prosecution authorities in Germany and Turkey have been notified regarding fraud committed using the disputed domain name. The Panel does not consider it appropriate to suspend this proceeding pending an outcome of any criminal proceedings.

The Complainant relies on its registrations of the word mark "PELIKAN" for various stationery and other goods :
- in Germany no. 677564 registered on 14 June 1955 with application date 28 November 1942;
- as international mark no. 189548 designating various European countries, registered on 21 December 1955 with application date 16 December 1955;
- in the USA no. 71698747 on 17 September 1957 with application date 22 November 1955;
- in the EU, no. 006218631 on 1 March 2011 with application date 9 August 2007.

The Complainant carries on business under the mark "PELIKAN" and uses its domain name <pelikan.com> for its website and email.

The Respondent has used the disputed domain name <peilkan.com> to send emails purporting to be from staff of the Complainant to a customer in Turkey, thereby fraudulently obtaining substantial payments to bank accounts of the Respondent or its associates.

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.

It is clear that the Complainant has longstanding registered rights in the mark "PELIKAN". The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to this mark, from which it differs only in the reversal of two letters and the addition of the generic top level domain suffix. The propensity of the disputed domain to confuse is demonstrated by the fraud that has been carried out using it.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i)of the Policy.

The Complainant confirms that it has not licensed the Respondent to use the disputed domain name and it is evident that the Respondent has no right to it or legitimate interest in using it.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

The disputed domain name has been used to carry fraud by impersonating the Complainant's employees, relying on the confusing similarity of email addresses comprising the disputed domain name with the Complainant's email addresses comprising the Complainant's domain name. This use of the disputed domain name is plainly in bad faith and it can be inferred that it was registered for the same purpose.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.

Disputed domain name almost identical to and readily confused with Complainant's mark and domain name. Respondent clearly has no rights or legitimate interests. Disputed domain name was used and registered in bad faith to obtain payments by impersonating Complainant's staff in emails sent to a Turkish customer of the Complainant.