The Knowledge Academy Holdings Limited v User-919234 Heinz, Heinzo

WIPO Case No. D2025-0691

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

The Knowledge Academy Holdings Limited v. User-919234 Heinz, Heinzo

Case No. D2025-0691

1. The Parties

The Complainant is The Knowledge Academy Holdings Limited, United Kingdom, represented by

Michelmores LLP, United Kingdom.

The Respondent is User-919234 Heinz, Heinzo, United States of America (“United States”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <theknwledgeacademy.com> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a

PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 20, 2025. On February 20, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 21, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that 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 February 26, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 18, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 28, 2025.

The Center appointed Knud Wallberg as the sole panelist in this matter on April 1, 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.

page 2

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is the holding company of The Knowledge Academy Limited, which was incorporated on April 1, 2009, and which is a business and IT training company which operates globally, providing training solutions to corporate, public sector, multinational organizations and private individuals. Its primary focus is delivering training in a wide range of areas from IT technical, personal development, human resources and management courses to project, program and IT service management.

The Complainant offers its services to the public through various channels, including through
its website “ through eLearning courses, and face to face through its
extensive network of instructors.

The Complainant is the owner of the following trademarks, among others: THE KNOWLEDGE ACADEMY, United States Trademark Registration No. 5398327, registered on February 6, 2018, in international classes 9, 16, 35 and 41 and THE KNOWLEDGE ACADEMY, European Union Trademark Registration No.

018157130, registered on May 22, 2020, in international classes 9, 16, 35 and 41.

The disputed domain name was registered on February 2, 2025, and is currently not used actively.

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 identical or nearly identical to the removal of the 'o' from 'knowledge'.

Furthermore, the Complainant is not aware of the Respondent using the disputed domain name 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 name. The Complainant also considers that it is not possible for the Respondent to have acquired any legitimate right to use the disputed domain name since its registration, or before.

Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith for illegitimate purposes in order to infringe the Complainant's marks and that the Respondent will never be capable of using the disputed domain name for a legitimate purpose as the notoriety and reputation of the Complainant’s marks are such that members of the public will always assume that there is an association between the Respondent and the Complainant.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the
Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.

page 3

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following:

(i) that the disputed domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a

trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

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

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

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the burden of proving that all these elements are present lies with the Complainant. At the same time, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules, or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate.

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.

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 name. The disputed domain name is thus confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy, since the disputed domain name “consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling” of the trademark. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7 and 1.9.

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. 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. In the absence of any explanation by the Respondent, the Panel finds that the

misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name signals an intention on the part of

the Respondent to confuse Internet users seeking or expecting the Complainant.

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

page 4

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.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has not offered any explanation for having registered a domain name that is quasi-identical to the Complainant’s distinctive trademark. Given the circumstances of the case, it is inconceivable to the Panel in the current circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without prior knowledge of the Complainant and the Complainant’s mark.

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.

Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) 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 reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, and the

composition of the disputed domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive
holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith use under the Policy.

Noting that the disputed domain name incorporates a well-known trademark, that the Respondent has failed to participate in these proceedings, that there appears to be no conceivable good faith use that could be made by the Respondent of the disputed domain name, and considering all the facts and evidence, the Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy are also fulfilled in this case.

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 <theknwledgeacademy.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Knud Wallberg/
Knud Wallberg
Sole Panelist
Date: April 17, 2025