I said this earlier, but just to express my opinion re precedent-setting a bit more fully.
This decision says that the domain name drll is confusingly similar to the TM Dell.
To support this they invoke the visual test of writing the two side by side and note a single
precedent case, that of the domain name
OmahaStecks with the TM OmahaSteaks.
To me this is a
huge broadening of the interpretation, saying that precedent from 2015 (also in an uncontested UDRP with no response from the domain owner) establishes the grounds is highly concerning. Yes they each involve a single letter change but in one case a long two-word domain name with a very specific non-generic half compared to this 4L case that could be a creative spelling or an acronym for many things.
While there are always many precedents, but
each time a UDRP panel or panelist widens the interpretation we should, as domain investors be concerned. This tends to happen in cases when no response is made. Now as part of the record, a future UDRP panel will be able to cite the decision that DRLL is confusingly similar to DELL.
"Respondent’s <drll.com> Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DELL mark. It incorporates a misspelled version of Complainant’s mark, merely substituting the letter “e” with an “r” and adding the gTLD “.com.” These changes do not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Omaha Steaks International, Inc. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA 1610122 (Forum July 9, 2015) (“The domain name differs from the mark only in that the domain name substitutes the letter ‘a’ in the word ‘steak’ with the letter ‘c’ and adds the generic Top Level Domain (‘gTLD’) ‘.com.’ These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy.”). The WIPO Overview 3.0 at ¶ 1.7, states that the test for confusing similarity “typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name.” Notwithstanding the changes described above, Complainant’s mark is clearly recognizable within the Domain Name, and this establishes its confusing similarity to Complainant’s mark."
Links:
The
DRLL decision
The
OmahaStecks decision