The Knowledge Academy Holdings Limited v Lalita Lorik
WIPO Case No. D2025-0274
•06-03-2025
ARBITRATION
AND
| MEDIATION CENTER |
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
The Knowledge Academy Holdings Limited v. Lalita Lorik
Case No. D2025-0274
1. The Parties
The Complainant is The Knowledge Academy Holdings Limited, United Kingdom, represented by
Michelmores LLP, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Lalita Lorik, Ukraine.
2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names <theknowledgeacadeemy.com>, <theknowledgeeacademy.com>, and
<theknowwledgeacademy.com> are registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
| On January 24, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in | The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 23, 2025. amended Complaint on January 29, 2025. |
| 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 January 30, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 19, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 20, 2025. |
page 2
The Center appointed Mihaela Maravela as the sole panelist in this matter on February 27, 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
According to information in the Complaint, the Complainant is operating as a business and IT training company which operates globally, providing training solutions to corporate, public sector, multinational organisations and private individuals. It is one of the world’s largest providers of training courses globally,
with the ability to deliver over 30,000 courses in over 1,000 locations across 190 countries.
The Complainant is the owner of various registered trademarks for THE KNOWLEDGE ACADEMY, including services in classes 9, 16, 35, and 41. The Complainant is using the domain name <theknowledgeacademy.com> for its official website to promote and offer its education related goods and services.
the European Union trademark no. 018157130 for THE KNOWLEDGE ACADEMY registered on May 22,
2020, covering goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, and 41, or the United Kingdom trademark no.
The disputed domain names were registered on January 6, 2025 and resolve to a “404 error” page.
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 names.
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or nearly identical to the Complainant’s trademarks and to the Complainant’s business and trading name, as the disputed domain names only slightly differ from the Complainant’s trademarks with the addition of a single letter hidden within the disputed domain names in a way which is clearly designed to confuse users. The additional letters do not differentiate the disputed domain names from the Complainant’s trademarks.
With respect to the second element, the Complainant submits that it is not aware of the Respondent using the disputed domain names in connection with the offering of goods or services prior to the registration date, nor is it aware that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. The disputed domain names resolve to display a blank “404 Not Found” page.
As regards the third element, the Complainant argues that given the widespread use and reputation of the Complainant’s trademarks, the Respondent must have been aware that in registering the disputed domain names it was misappropriating the valuable intellectual property of the Complainant. The additional letters have been added to exploit what is commonly known as “typosquatting”, whereby letters are added not to differentiate marks but to take advantage of misspells and typographical errors a user may make when
typing a domain name. The Respondent’s “404 Not Found” page is evidence that the Respondent has
registered the disputed domain names in bad faith without a genuine intention of using the disputed domain
names for a proper purpose.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
page 3
6. Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 10 of the Rules, the Panel is required to ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case, and also that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition.
Since the Respondent’s mailing address is stated to be in Ukraine, which is subject to an international conflict at the date of this Decision that may impact case notification, it is appropriate for the Panel to consider, in accordance with its discretion under paragraph 10 of the Rules, whether the proceeding should continue.
Having considered all the circumstances of the case, the Panel is of the view that it should. There is no suggestion before the Panel that notification of the Complaint did not reach the Respondent, for example the notifications sent via the Registrar appear as successfully sent. The Panel also notes that the Complainant has specified in the Complaint that any challenge made by the Respondent to any decision to transfer or cancel the disputed domain names shall be referred to the jurisdiction of the Courts of the location of the principal office of the concerned registrar, in this case, California, the United States of America.
It is moreover noted that, for the reasons which are set out later in this Decision, the Panel has no serious doubt (albeit in the absence of any Response) that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain names in bad faith and with the intention of unfairly targeting the Complainant’s goodwill in its
trademarks.
The Panel concludes that the Parties have been given a fair opportunity to present their case, and so that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition the Panel will proceed to a Decision accordingly.
The applicable standard of proof in UDRP cases is the “balance of probabilities” or “preponderance of the evidence”, and the Panel can draw certain inferences in light of the particular facts and circumstances of the case. See section 4.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain names are 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 names, and (iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
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 3.0, section 1.7.
The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.
The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain names, which consists of the obvious misspelling of the THE KNOWLEDGE ACADEMY trademark of the Complainant, with the addition of the letter “e” in the disputed domain names <theknowledgeacadeemy.com>, <theknowledgeeacademy.com>, and the addition of the letter “w” in the disputed domain name <theknowwledgeacademy.com>. This misspelling in the disputed domain names also referred to as typosquatting, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9). Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
page 4
It is the settled view of panels applying the Policy that the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) (here “.com”) should be disregarded under the first element test.
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 names. 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 names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.
There is no evidence that the Respondent is using the disputed domain names in connection with a bona
fide offering of goods or services. The disputed domain names do not resolve to active websites. The Panel
finds that holding domain names passively, without making any use of them, also does not confer any rights
or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names on the Respondent.
Also, there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.
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.
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.
According to the unrebutted assertions of the Complainant, its THE KNOWLEDGE ACADEMY trademark was widely used in commerce well before the registration of the disputed domain names. The disputed domain names are a misspelled version of the Complainant’s trademark, and are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and tradename. Under these circumstances, it is most likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the registration date of the disputed domain names. The Respondent provided no explanations for why it registered the disputed domain names.
page 5
Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain names, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed
domain names does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. Furthermore, the Respondent
availed of a privacy shield service to protect his identity. While the use of a privacy shield is not necessarily
objectionable in itself, in the present case it contributes to the accumulation of elements pointing to bad faith
registration and use. Moreover, the Respondent has not formally participated in these proceedings and has
failed to rebut the Complainant’s contentions and to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good
faith use.
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 names <theknowledgeacadeemy.com>, <theknowledgeeacademy.com>, and <theknowwledgeacademy.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
/Mihaela Maravela/
Mihaela Maravela
Sole Panelist
Date: March 6, 2025
0
0
0