Today in our Domain Dispute case study we will go through the domain name Tarqet.net. Here Target Brands was up against Mary Jarvis.
Complainant’s Case
The complainant, who owns and operates a chain of retail department stores under the trademark “TARGET”, alleges that the respondent registered the domain name with the intention of phishing for personal information and financial gain from the complainant’s customers.
The Complainant’s argument is that the disputed domain name tarqet.net is a typo-squatted version of its trademark “TARGET”. The respondent used the domain name to create an email account and sent fraudulent emails to the complainant’s business partners requesting payments on accounts.
The Complainant argues that it owns the TARGET trademark and service mark, which is established through its United States registrations and extensive use in its retail department store business and on the Internet.
It has a substantial international reputation and is traded on the New York Stock Exchange. The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its TARGET mark, as it is a minor misspelling of the mark by replacing the letter “g” with “q” and adding the “.net” generic Top-Level Domain extension.
The Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as there is no evidence that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name or the term “tarqet,” operates a business or organisation under that name, or owns any trademark or service mark rights in the words TARQET or TARGET.
The Complainant also refers to copies of emails allegedly sent by Respondent to lure Complainant’s business partners into a fraudulent phishing scheme, which it submits as evidence that the Respondent’s use is not bona fide or legitimate. Finally, the Complainant adds that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain, and the fact that it only resolves to a parking page supports this claim.
Respondent’s Rebuttal
The Respondent failed to submit a response.
Jury’s Judgement
The Panel found that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith with the intention of taking predatory advantage of the Complainant’s goodwill and reputation.
The evidence presented showed that the domain name was used to create an email account from which fraudulent emails were sent, impersonating actual employees of the Complainant in a phishing effort to illegally lure the Complainant’s business partners into a fraudulent scheme.
The Panel also found that the domain name was a misspelling of the Complainant’s TARGET mark and was registered in bad faith as an act of typo-squatting, in circumstances where the registrant was actually aware of the Complainant’s name and mark.
The fact that the domain name did not resolve to any active website content, but only to a parking page, further supported the Panel’s finding that there was no bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use under the Policy.
The domain name was Transferred.
You can read the case in full detail here.
Join the Discussion