Equifax Inc. v Protection Domain

WIPO Case No. D2022-1051

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Equifax Inc. v. Protection Domain

Case No. D2022-1051

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Equifax Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by The GigaLaw

Firm, Douglas M. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC, United States.

The Respondent is Protection Domain, Panama.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <equifaxx.com> is registered with Above.com, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 28, 2022. On March 28, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 1, 2022, 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 April 1, 2022, 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 April 5, 2022.

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 proceeding commenced on April 7, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 27, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 28, 2022.

page 2

The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on May 3. 2022. 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

A. Complainant

The Complainant is a company incorporated in the State of Georgia in the United States, listed on the New

York Stock Exchange, and a member of Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Index.

The Complainant is a leading global provider of information solutions and human resources business worldwide. The Complainant is the owner of numerous registrations for the Trade Mark in jurisdictions worldwide, including United States registration No. 1,027,544, with a registration date of December 16, 1975.

process outsourcing services for businesses, governments and consumers, and credit reporting services,
under the trade mark EQUIFAX (the “Trade Mark”), with operations or investments in 24 countries in North

The Complainant owns the domain name <equifax.com>, which was created in 1995, and uses it in connection with the Complainant’s primary website.

B. Respondent

The Registrar confirmed that the registrant of the disputed domain name is “Protection Domain”. Therefore, the identity of the Respondent is not clear.

C. The Disputed Domain Name

The disputed domain name was registered on August 8, 2002.

D. Use of the Disputed Domain Name

The disputed domain name has previously been redirected to a website of TransUnion, a competitor of the Complainant in the credit reporting business in the United States. As at the date of this Decision, it is resolved to a parking page with sponsored links relating to credit reporting services, including those offered by the Complainant under the Trade Mark.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration.

The disputed domain name incorporates the Trade Mark in its entirety with an additional letter “x”.
Therefore, the disputed domain name consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of the Trade
Mark (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO

Overview 3.0”), section 1.9).

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of non-exhaustive circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name:

(i)        before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable

preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in
connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name even if the respondent has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or

(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without

intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at
issue.

The Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the Trade Mark. The Panel finds on the record that there is therefore a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the burden

is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption.

The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the disputed domain name has previously been redirected to a website of a competitor of the Complainant in the credit reporting industry; and it is presently resolved to a parking page with sponsored links relating to credit reporting, including with reference to the Trade Mark.

There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name; and there has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

page 4

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Given the notoriety of the Complainant and of its prior registered Trade Mark in particular in the credit reporting field; the distinctiveness of the Trade Mark; the fact the disputed domain name is almost identical to the Trade Mark and the Complainant’s domain name <equifax.com>; and the manner of the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name referred to above; the Panel finds, in all the circumstances, that the requisite element of bad faith has been made out under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used 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 <equifaxx.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Sebastian M.W. Hughes/
Sebastian M.W. Hughes
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 17, 2022