ETrawler Unlimited Company v Cartrawaler Car, Cartwaler

WIPO Case No. D2022-3594

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

ETrawler Unlimited Company v. Cartrawaler Car, Cartwaler

Case No. D2022-3594

1. The Parties

The Complainant is ETrawler Unlimited Company, Ireland, internally represented.

The Respondent is Cartrawaler Car, Cartwaler, Brazil.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <cartrawaler.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 September 29,

2022. On September 29, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar

verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 29, 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 (Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 7151571251) and

contact information in the Complaint. The Registrar also informed that the language of registration

agreement is Portuguese. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 5, 2022

providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to

submit an amendment to the Complaint. On the same day, the Center informed the Complainant that the

language of registration agreement differed from the language of the Complaint. The Complainant filed an

amended Complaint with the registrant information and an amendment to the Complaint with the request for

English to be the language of proceeding on October 7, 2022.

The Center verified that the Complaint, together with the amended Complaint and 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 October 27, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph

5, the due date for Response was November 16, 2022. The Respondent did not file a formal Response, but

sent an informal email on October 7, 2022.

page 2

The Center appointed Gonçalo M. C. Da Cunha Ferreira as the sole panelist in this matter on December 1,

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

The CarTrawler group is a leading B2B provider of technology solutions for the global travel industry and has

been in operation since 2004 and extensively uses the registered trademark CARTRAWLER including in

respect of its website “cartrawler.com”. The Complainant owns several trademark registrations for the name

CARTRAWLER including the European Union Trademark registration no. 004640471, renewed on October

4, 2015 and the United States of America Trademark registration no. 3453769, renewed on June 24, 2008.

The disputed domain name was registered on July 29, 2022 and resolves to an inactive website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant claims that:

a) The Respondent’s domain name <cartrawaler.com> is confusingly similar to CarTrawler’s trademark

and domain name, <cartrawler.com>.

b)	The disputed domain is simply a misspelling of our domain name by adding to it the letter “a”.
c)	There is phonetical and visually confusing similarity with CarTrawler’s domain name.
d)	The Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name nor have they used the

domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services before the notice of this

complaint.

e)	The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
f)	The Respondent will intentionally attract Internet users to their website by creating a likelihood of

confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not file a formal Response and sent an informal email on October 7, 2022, just asking

for more details, but did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1. Preliminary Matter – Language of the Proceeding

The Complainant requests that the language of proceedings be English, as at the time he submitted the

Complaint, the Respondent appeared to be a company based in Toronto, Canada, another English speaking

jurisdiction. The Panel notes that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name

was Portuguese.

page 3

Moreover, the Panel notes that the Center’s communications to the Parties have been transmitted in both

English and Portuguese. The Panel would have accepted a response in either English or Portuguese,

however, no formal response was received from the Respondent. Having considered all the circumstances

above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of this proceeding is

English.

6.2. Substantive Matters

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel to decide the Complaint based on the statements and

documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it

deems applicable.

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following:

(i)        the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which

the Complainant has rights;

(ii)       the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii)      the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four non-exhaustive illustrative circumstances, which for the purposes

of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three non-exhaustive illustrative circumstances any one of which, if

prove by the Respondent, shall be evidence of the Respondent’s rights to or legitimate interests in the

disputed domain name for the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy above.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademarks CARTRAWLER just with a simple

misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark by adding to it the letter “a”.

As the trademarks are clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name, the misspelling of this word by

adding to it the letter “a” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name nor have they used the domain name

in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services before the notice of this Complaint.

As highlighted in several previous UDRP decisions, in such a case the burden of production shifts to the

Respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the

domain name (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition

(“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1). The Respondent did not submit a response and has failed to invoke

any circumstance which could have demonstrated rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name

under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel accepts and agrees with the Complainant’s that the disputed domain name was registered and

page 4

has been used in bad faith, as no plausible explanation was provided by the Respondent and the way the

disputed domain name was registered (with a misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark), the Panel finds

that the Respondent knew about the Complainant.

The passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith (see WIPO

Overview 3.0, section 3.3).

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

Therefore, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

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 <cartrawaler.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Gonçalo M. C. Da Cunha Ferreira/

Gonçalo M. C. Da Cunha Ferreira

Sole Panelist

Date: December 19, 2022