Westmore · UDRP DecisionMarllink.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <marllink.com>. It found the domain to be a typosquatted version of the MARLINK mark, held that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests, and concluded that passive holding constituted bad-faith registration and use in light of the mark's reputation, the privacy shield, activated MX records, the Respondent's default, and the absence of any plausible good-faith use.
The timeline behind marllink.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind marllink.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates how a panel may find bad faith where a typo domain is inactive but surrounding circumstances point toward targeting. Here, the combination of a one-letter misspelling of an invented and well-known mark, resemblance to the Complainant's longstanding official domain, privacy-shield use, enabled MX records, and the absence of any rebuttal or plausible good-faith explanation was decisive.
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 Marlink SA v. Contact Privacy Inc., Customer 1245005519 / Roberts Matthew, marl Link LLC Case No. D2019-1653 1. The Parties The Complainant is Marlink SA, Belgium, represented by Inlex IP Expertise, France. The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc., Customer 1245005519, Canada / Roberts Matthew, marl Link LLC, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <marllink.com> (“Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Google LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 15, 2019. On July 15, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On July 15, 2019, 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 16, 2019, 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 19, 2019. 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 July 22, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 11, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 12, 2019. The Center appointed Gabriela Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on August 15, 2019. 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 is a global satellite communication provider primarily focused on offering satellite connectivity and cybersecurity solutions in the maritime industry. The Complainant is the owner of numerous trade mark registrations for the MARLINK word and device marks across multiple jurisdictions, including, inter alia : (i) European Union Trade Mark MARLINK, registration No. 015333487, registered on October 4, 2016 in class 38, claiming priority based on the German trade mark No. 39628128 filed on June 26, 1996, Benelux trade mark No. 0607403 filed on June 24, 1996, Danish trade mark No. VR 1996 04789 filed on June 27, 1996 and Greek trade mark No. F129809 filed on June 24, 1996; (ii) European Union Trade Mark MARLINK, registration No. 015462864, registered on September 16, 2016 in class 38; and (iii) International Trade Mark MARLINK, registration No. 1309586, registered on July 13, 2016 in class 38. The Complainant also owns the domain name <marlink.com>, which was registered on May 10, 1996 and resolves to the official website of the Complainant. The Respondent is an individual based in the United States. The Disputed Domain Name was registered by the Respondent on July 4, 2019 through a privacy shield and does not currently resolve to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant’s primary contentions can be summarised as follows: (a) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or highly similar to the Complainant’s registered trade mark MARLINK, given that the Disputed Domain Name only differs from the Complainant’s MARLINK mark by one letter and can therefore be considered typosquatting; (b) the Complainant has never authorised or licensed the Respondent to use its MARLINK mark in any way and the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, therefore the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name; and (c) the reputation and distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trade mark, combined with the Respondent’s use of a privacy shield when registering the Disputed Domain Name and the Respondent’s activation of the MX records attached to the Disputed Domain Name, support the fact that the Respondent is acting in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. The fact that the Respondent has not submitted a formal Response does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant. However, the Respondent’s failure to file a Response may result in the Panel drawing appropriate inferences from such default. The Panel may also accept all reasonable and supported allegations and inferences flowing from the Complaint as true (see Entertainment Shopping AG v. Nischal Soni, Sonik Technologies , WIPO Case No. D2009-1437 and Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM , WIPO Case No. D2000-0403 ). 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove each of the following three elements: (i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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 by the Respondent in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the MARLINK trade mark, based on its multiple trade mark registrations across various jurisdictions. It is well-established that in making an enquiry as to whether a trade mark is identical or confusingly similar to a domain name, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension “.com” may be disregarded. See section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview Panel views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”). The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s MARLINK mark almost in its entirety, save for the additional letter “l” between the characters “mar” and “link”. The fact that the letter “l” is directly inserted prior to the characters “link” strongly suggest that this was a deliberate misspelling of the Complainant’s mark, which was intended to be confusing by design so as to mislead Internet users. This is clearly a typical example of typosquatting behavior, where the Respondent takes advantage of Internet users who inadvertently mistype an address when attempting to access the Complainant’s official website <marlink.com>. See section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 . As such, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MARLINK mark and accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Once a complainant establishes a prima facie case in respect of the lack of rights or legitimate interests of a respondent in a disputed domain name, the respondent then carries the burden of demonstrating that it has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Where the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. The Panel accepts that the Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to use the MARLINK mark, and there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent which would otherwise entitle the Respondent to use the MARLINK mark. Accordingly, the Panel is of the view that a prima facie case has been established and it is for the Respondent to show rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. As the Respondent has not submitted a Response, the Panel will assess the case based on the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the Complainant’s evidence and by carrying out her own investigation. Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the Respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name by demonstrating any of the following: (1) before any notice to him of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name was in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (2) the Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, even if he has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or (3) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the Respondent has trade mark rights corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name, or that he has become commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. The Disputed Domain Name does not currently resolve to an active website. There is therefore no evidence before the Panel that the Respondent has used, or has made any demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for noncommercial or fair use purposes. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith It is generally recognised that the passive holding of a domain name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith. See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 . In this case, the Panel finds that the passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent amounts to bad faith use and registration due to the following: (i) the Complainant’s MARLINK mark is well-known. A quick Internet search shows that the top search results returned for the keyword “marlink” are the Complainant’s official website and affiliated social media pages; (ii) the Respondent failed to respond to the Complainant’s contentions and has provided no evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the Disputed Domain Name; (iii) the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name using a privacy shield to conceal his identity in the WhoIs records; (iv) the fact that the Respondent has created a MX (mail exchanger) record for the Disputed Domain Name to enable the sending of emails using an email address which contains the Disputed Domain Name is a further indication of unscrupulous intentions; and (v) it is difficult to conceive of any plausible use of the Disputed Domain Name that would amount to good faith use, given the Disputed Domain Name is identical or at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MARLINK mark and registered domain name <marlink.com>, and in light of the fact that “marlink” is a made-up word with no independent meaning. Any use of the Disputed Domain Name would likely result in misleading Internet users into believing the Disputed Domain Name is associated with the Complainant. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and has been using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith, and paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied. 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 <marllink.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Gabriela Kennedy Sole Panelist Date: August 29, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around marllink.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.