Givkwik Inc.just lost its bid to grab the domain name givequick.com in a UDRP

Nathalie Dreyfus was the sole panelist who found although givequick.com was confusingly similar to Complainant’s GIVKWIK IMPULSE PHILANTHROPY mark the domain holder did not act in bad faith in registering or using the domain that they bought from BuyDomains.com in April 2014.

givequick.com was registered on February 13, 2009, and purchased by the domain holder form buydomains.com April 3, 2014.

Here are the highlights:

“Respondent contends that Complainant has chosen to use misspelled versions of commonly used words, and Complainant’s expectation, acknowledgement, and anticipation of the confusion with a word that is commonly and widely known only demonstrates Complainant’s awareness of their own mark’s unavoidable confusion.

Complainant Givkwik Inc., which was founded in 2009, accepts and administers monetary charitable contributions in addition to creating, developing, and maintaining software applications and a website to facilitate charitable donations.

Complainant owns federal trademark rights in the GIVKWIK IMPULSE PHILANTHROPY mark (e.g. Reg. No. 4,158,251, registered June 12, 2012) through the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Since April 2009, Complainant has owned and used the URL to promote and provide its services using the Givkwik Platform.

Respondent bought the disputed domain name on April 3, 2014, which was available since February 11, 2010 on the website buydomains.com.

On September 23, 2014, Complainant sent a Cease-and-Desist letter to Respondent requesting to cease the use of the disputed domain name and to transfer it to Complainant.

In a letter dated of September 25, 2014, Respondent explained to Complainant that it had ceased the use of the disputed domain name. However, regarding the transfer of the disputed domain name, Respondent required Complainant to compensate Respondent’s expenses related to the purchase of the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that Complainant has not established a prima facie case in support of its arguments that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

Respondent states that it has never developed or launched a website service named “Givequick,” nor did Respondent provide a charitable giving service which enabled the acceptance and administering of monetary charitable contributions.

Respondent insists that it was merely in the earliest planning states of such a venture and had never actually launched its website, which was under construction and password protected.

Respondent suspects that Complainant used programs to strip information via web scraping to break through Respondent’s privacy wall in order to initiate this complaint.

Respondent argues that Complainant’s actions are an attempt to intimidate and manipulate Respondent into surrendering the disputed domain name without compensation, and Respondent’s contemplation of and planning for a charitable giving service does not constitute an actual service.

Past panels have found rights and legitimate interests where a respondent has made preparations to use a disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. See Jolt Co. v. Digital Milk, Inc., D2001-0493 (WIPO Aug. 1, 2001) (holding that the respondent’s submission of an extensive and elaborate business plan demonstrating the respondent’s preparation to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services was sufficient to establish a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name).

Although it appears that the disputed domain name resolved to a website offering similar services to Complainant’s, it is not clear to the Panel as to how this information was obtained and proof is lacking to demonstrate that Respondent’s website was active and available to the public.

However, it is clear that Respondent has made adequate preparations to use the disputed domain name and uses it in connection to a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has rights in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

The Panel finds that Complainant failed to meet the burden of proof of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

Indeed, the Panel finds that Complainant has not succeeded in proving that Respondent has registered or used the givequick.com domain name in bad faith with regards to the factors listed in Policy ¶ 4(b) or engaged in any other conduct that would constitute bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).