Isureandgo.com

The timeline behind isureandgo.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Insure & Go Insurance Services Limited v. Mongol Post / Moniker Privacy Services Case No. D2013-1100 1. The Parties The Complainant is Insure & Go Insurance Services Limited of Southend-on-Sea, Essex, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented by Adlex Solicitors, United Kingdom. The Respondent is Mongol Post of Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia/ Moniker Privacy Services of Portland, Oregon, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <isureandgo.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Moniker Online Services, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 19, 2013. On June 19, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 9 2013, 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 July 9, 2013 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 July 16, 2013. 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 16, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 5, 2013. On July 22, 2013, a person named Jargal (apparently an International Relations and Cooperation manager of Mongol Post Company) sent an email communication to the Center, stating that they had received the written notice from the Center via courier and claiming that the Mongol Post Company was not a party to the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any formal response. Accordingly, on August 7, 2013, the Center notified the parties about the commencement of the panel appointment process. The Center appointed Wolter Wefers Bettink as the sole panelist in this matter on August 14, 2013. 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 company of the Complainant provides direct travel insurance services under the name “Insureandgo”. The Complainant also provides other forms of insurance, such as home, car, life and commercial insurance. The Complainant has been a registered company since August 2000 and has operated and is operating through a website at “www.insureandgo.com”. The Complainant is the owner of various trademarks consisting of or containing the words INSUREANDGO or INSURE&GO, which includes a CTM No. 002516656 (device mark), which was filed on December 24, 2001 and registered on August 11, 2003. The Domain Name was registered on July 6, 2004. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant submits that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark INSUREANDGO, the only difference being the removal of the letter “n”. This creates confusion in both a visual and phonetic respect, the Complainant states. According to the Complainant, the Respondent has used the Domain Name to attract, confuse and profit from Internet users seeking the Complainant. The Respondent has no association with the Complainant and has never been authorized or licensed by the Complainant to use its trademark. There is no evidence that it has been commonly known by the Domain Name and its use of the Domain Name does not constitute a bona fide offer of goods and services, or a noncommercial fair use of the Domain Name, the Complainant submits. The Complainant puts forward that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith, since it contains a deliberate misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark and the Respondent has not denied this assertion by the Complainant in correspondence. In addition, the Complainant asserts, there is bad faith use as the Respondent has set out to impersonate the Complainant by using the Complainant’s name, logo, telephone number and parts of its website, for the website under the Domain Name. The Complainant points out that the website at the Domain Name contains sponsored links and advertising, including links to the Complainant’s website and to websites of competitors of the Complainant. On this basis, the Complainant concludes that the Domain Name should be transferred. B. Respondent The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Domain Name is similar to the word marks on which the Complainant relies and to the device marks of which the dominant element is “INSUREANDGO”. The only difference is the missing letter “n”, which results in a misspelling of Complainant’s trademark INSUREANDGO. The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has laid out the required prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. There is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name, nor that there was a commercial relationship with or license from the Complainant to register and use the Domain Name. The evidence submitted shows that in or before March 2013 Respondent started to use a website under the Domain Name with the logo, telephone number and name of Complainant and a make-up, which was partially, but recognizably copied from an earlier version of the website of Complainant. Furthermore, the website under the Domain Name (at least from that date) contains links to, inter alia , competitors of the Complainant, which offer goods and services which compete with those of the Complainant. Under these circumstances, the use of the Domain Name cannot be considered to be in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Since the website under the Domain Name is apparently a parking page with sponsored links, it must be assumed that the Respondent derives income therefrom, so that there is no noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. On the basis of the above, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant has brought forward evidence which shows that it was a registered company since August 2000 and filed its first trademark (the CTM No. 002516656) on December 24, 2001. The application was published on March 24, 2003. Furthermore, the evidence submitted shows that in 2003 the Complainant had a turnover of just over GBP 4,000,000.- which doubled to GBP 8,500,000.- in 2004. In 2003 around 21,000 persons were insured with the Complainant, which increased to 463,000 in 2004. Other evidence shows that in 2004, prior to the registration date of the Domain Name, the Complainant advertised consistently in a number of national newspapers and magazines in the United Kingdom, including the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Mirror. Based on the examples provided by the Complainant, these advertisements included the device mark, referred to above, which contains the word “insureandgo”. Against this background, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent, when registering the Domain Name, was most likely aware of the Complainant’s trademark, and that it registered the Domain Name as a deliberate misspelling of that trademark. Taking into account that the Respondent has not filed a Response, so that these statements have not been rebutted. The Panel concludes that this constitutes bad faith registration under the circumstances of this case. Furthermore, the use of the Domain Name for a website which prominently features the name, logo and telephone number of the Complainant and copies a recognizable part of an earlier version of the website of the Complainant is evidence that the Respondent, by using the Domain Name, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website under the Domain Name by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of that website. This constitutes bad faith use of the marks of the Complainant. 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 <isureandgo.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Wolter Wefers Bettink Sole Panelist Date: August 28, 2013

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.