Tempcover-official.com

The timeline behind tempcover-official.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.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Tempcover Ltd v. Adam Khan Case No. D2025-0078 1. The Parties The Complainant is Tempcover Ltd, United Kingdom, represented by Venner Shipley LLP, United Kingdom. The Respondent is Adam Khan, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <tempcover-official.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 9, 2025. On January 10, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 10, 2025, 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 (Domains By Proxy, LLC, DomainsByProxy.com) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 13, 2025, 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 amendment to the Complaint on January 16, 2025. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 January 17, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 6, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 13, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Dr. Clive N.A. Trotman as the sole panelist in this matter on February 19, 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, now part of the RVU Group, provides vehicle insurance. The Complainant targets specifically the needs of drivers who require short term insurance coverage, typically from one to 14 days. The Complainant has provided this service since 2006, and since 2010 under the trademark TEMPCOVER. The Complainant has been successful and by 2016 had sold some 2 million insurance policies. Its industry recognition has included: in 2021, Global Digital Experience Awards, Best Use of CRM [customer relationship management]; in 2020, Insurance Times Awards, B2C [business to consumer] Marketing Campaign of the Year; in 2020, British Insurance Awards 2020, Brand Management Award; in 2020, Insurance Times Tech & Innovation Awards, Best Use of Technology for Customer Experience; in 2017, The Queen’s Award for Enterprise. The Complainant is prominent on social media and has received favourable press comment. The Complainant owns the following registered trademarks: TEMPCOVER (stylised), United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”), registered on August 16, 2019, registration number 3399923, in class 36; TEMPCOVER.COM, UKIPO, registered on December 4, 2009, registration number 2515637, in class 36. The Complainant does business through the website “www.tempcover.com” and also uses the domain name <tempcover.com> as an email address. Nothing is known about the Respondent except for the contact details provided to the Registrar at the time of registration of the disputed domain name on January 4, 2025. The disputed domain name has resolved to a holding page (the “Respondent's website”) stating that it is launching soon. 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 comprises the terms “tempcover” and “official” and is confusingly similar to both of the Complainant's trademarks. The term “tempcover” is identical to the Complainant's trademark TEMPCOVER. The additional word “official” is descriptive and the disputed domain name would be understood by consumers as referring to the Complainant's official website. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves has the heading “TEMP COVER OFFICIAL” followed by “Launching Soon”. The Respondent has not been authorised to use the Complainant's trademark. There is no evidence the disputed domain name has been used or that there have been preparations for its use in connection with any legitimate business, or that the Respondent has been known by the disputed domain name. page 3 The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant says the disputed domain name is in effect passively held, which should not prevent a finding of bad faith. It is inconceivable that the Respondent could have any reason to use the Complainant’s trademark to operate a legitimate business in good faith. The Complainant believes the Respondent intends to impersonate the Complainant and to confuse consumers into thinking the disputed domain name is endorsed by the Complainant. The Complainant says it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s business when registering the disputed domain name. The Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or of the goods or services offered. The Complainant also says the disputed domain name could be used as the basis of an email address that could be confused with the Complainant and could be used for purposes of fraud or phishing. The Complainant says it has been the target of a large number of such fraudulent attempts. The Complainant has cited certain previous decisions under the Policy that it considers to be relevant to the present case. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. 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. 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 entirety of the mark TEMPCOVER is reproduced 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. Furthermore, the Complainant's trademark TEMPCOVER.COM is reproduced within the disputed domain name with the interposition of the term “-official”. Although the addition of other terms (here, “official”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trademarks 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. page 4 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 particular, the Panel finds that the display on the Respondent's website of the claim “Launching Soon”, in the absence of any further evidence or any reply from the Respondent, is insufficient to demonstrate preparations for the use of the disputed domain name for any bona fide purpose. 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. The Complainant has enumerated three possible grounds for a finding of registration and use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent in bad faith. One ground is that the disputed domain name is passively held, which, in many previous cases, has not prevented a finding of registration and use in bad faith. The Panel notes the Complainant referred to the composition of the disputed domain name including the word “official”, and stated that it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have any legitimate reason to use the Complainant’s identical trade mark to operate a legitimate business in good faith. However, the Complainant has not explored specifically to the satisfaction of the Panel the various criteria that have been generally deemed essential by panels before making a finding bad of faith through passive holding, including the extent to which a trademark can be regarded as well-known or whether the disputed domain name could plausibly be used without conflict with the Complainant. However, the Panel notes that the Complainant’s evidence shows that one of the third-parties reviews of the Complainant’s services refers to the fact that the Complainant “has sold more than three- million policies to date” (being an article dated as of May 14, 2020). The Complainant has also expressed concern that the disputed domain name could be used as the basis of an email address confusingly similar to the Complainant's own email address, with consequent potential for fraudulent use. Whilst that suspicion may be well-founded, in this instance there is no evidence on which to proceed. The Panel notes that the Respondent seems to be in the same jurisdiction as the Complainant, and that the Complainant operates <tempcover.com>, which is almost identical to the disputed domain name except for page 5 the added term “official” which the Complainant claims will be understood by consumers as referring to the official website where users can go to obtain information about, or purchase, the Complainant’s services. The disputed domain name resolves to a website comprising the heading “TEMP COVER OFFICIAL” followed by “Launching Soon” and further down by “Subscribe” and “Sign up to be the first to get updates”. Near the bottom of the page is a box for the enquirer to provide their email address, followed by “SIGN UP”, and the statement “Copyright © 2025 Temp Cover Official - All Rights Reserved”. The Panel considers that the purpose of the website at the disputed domain name seems to be collecting email addresses of Internet users for so pretended updates of “TEMP COVER OFFICIAL”, which distances the case from a typical passive holding scenario for a website coming soon. Within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, the Panel finds on the evidence and on the balance of probabilities that by use of the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intended to attract Internet users to the Respondent's website or other on-line location, such as a potential email address, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location. In the absence of any explanation by the Respondent to the contrary it may reasonably be concluded on balance that the Respondent’s intentions in the disputed domain name are for taking an unfair advantage due to its similarity with the Complainant’s trademark and domain name. 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-official.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Dr. Clive N.A. Trotman/ Dr. Clive N.A. Trotman Sole Panelist Date: February 26, 2025

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