Tempcover Ltd v syed kazmi

WIPO Case No. D2024-4731

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Tempcover Ltd v. syed kazmi

Case No. D2024-4731

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Tempcover Ltd, United Kingdom (“UK”), represented by AA Thornton IP LLP, UK.

The Respondent is syed kazmi, UK.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <tempcover-insurancepolicy.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc.

(the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 15, 2024. On November 15, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 18, 2024, 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 (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 19, 2024, 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 amended Complaint on November 22, 2024.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 November 26, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 16, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 23, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Gareth Dickson as the sole panelist in this matter on January 7, 2025. 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 offers short-term insurance, i.e. temporary cover insurance policies. It began its business in 2006, rebranding to Tempcover.com in 2010 before being acquired by the RVU Group in 2022. The Complainant operates in the insurance sector and collaborates with a panel of insurers and numerous corporate partners and brokers.

The Complainant has been operating under the trade mark TEMPCOVER since 2010 (the “Mark”). It owns the following registrations relating to the Mark:

- UK Trade Mark number UK00003399923 for a series of two device marks incorporating the Mark, in

class 36, registered on August 16, 2019; and

- UK Trade Mark number UK00002515637 for the word mark TEMPCOVER.COM in class 36,

registered on December 4, 2009.

The disputed domain name was registered on August 6, 2024, and appears to redirect Internet users to the

Complainant’s website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark, as it incorporates the Mark in its entirety with the addition of descriptive terms. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, as the Complainant has not authorised the Respondent's use of the Mark, and the Respondent is alleged to be engaging in fraudulent activity by redirecting the domain to the Complainant's website. The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, as the Respondent is using its famous and widely-known trade mark to attempt to impersonate the Complainant for commercial gain by deceiving consumers. The Complainant also alludes to the possibility that the disputed domain name might be used in the future to impersonate the Complainant in correspondence with customers or potential customers.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing
(or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison
between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel
Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

page 3

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trade mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

Although the Complainant's registered marks are not identical to the disputed domain name, the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the TEMPCOVER.COM mark with the interspersion of the added term “-insurancepolicy” before the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”, which is also mirrored in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Although the addition of other terms, here “insurance” and “policy”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized
that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task
of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the
respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or
legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with
relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of
proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant
evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 2.1.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Given the descriptive nature of the added words to the Complainant’s trademark which comprise the disputed domain name, this shows that the Respondent’s interest in the disputed domain name appears to extend no further than its utility as a tool to allow the Respondent to impersonate the Complainant. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here claimed to be impersonation/passing off the disputed domain name as being connected to the Complainant, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to associated himself with the Complainant by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark.

page 4

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

The Complainant relies on its concern that in future the disputed domain name may be used by the
Respondent to correspond with the Complainant's customers or potential customers. While such a concern
is understandable, it cannot be a determinative factor to consider in relation to the third limb if it is merely
subjective and is not supported by evidence. The Complaint is of course right to refer to a potential
presumption of bad faith where a famous or widely-known mark is registered by a third party
(see section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0), but the Panel is unable, on the evidence provided, to accept
the Complainant's submission that the Mark is famous or widely-known by the relevant public.

The Complainant is on stronger ground when describing the Respondent’s redirection of the disputed domain name to the Complainant's own website. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here claimed to be impersonation/passing off, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0,

section 3.4. Furthermore, in the absence of any explanation from the Respondent as to his motives for
registering the disputed domain name, such redirection is strong evidence that the Respondent registered
the disputed domain name for that purpose, and therefore that the Respondent has registered and used the
disputed domain name in bad faith.

Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 <tempcover-insurancepolicy.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Gareth Dickson/
Gareth Dickson
Sole Panelist
Date: January 29, 2025