Inc” describes itself as “Computerized Accounting and Income Tax Specialists”.The “contact details” on the website identify the Respondent i.e. “Asif Vadaria(CPA)”.4.7The website is somewhat old fashioned in style but it also contains a link to“www.udomytax.com”. The website at the “www.udomytax.com”addressappears to be another website for “Taxcutters Inc” and the Respondent.However, this looks very different from the website operating from the Domain Name, being far more professional in style.4.8The Complainant through its attorneys sent cease and desist letters to theRespondent on August 9 and October 12, 2007. The Respondent did not respondto either of these letters.
5.1The Complainant’s contentions are as follows:
5.2The Complainant relies upon the registrations already described. It also contendsthat as a result of its use of “‘Tax Cut’ and related Marks” since at least as earlyas 1988, it has common law rights in the “Marks”.5.3It claims that the Domain Name comprises the TAX CUT mark with the genericaddition “inc”. As such it is said to be confusingly similar “if not essentiallyidentical” to the Complainant’s “Marks”. It relies in this respect on the decisionsin
American Online v. iDomainNames.com,
NAF Case No. FA 93766 and
Gorstew Limited & Unique Vacations, Inc v Berkshire Trust,
NAF Case No.FA008000095430.
No rights or legitimate interests
5.4The Complainant contends that the Respondent has without authorisation“misappropriated a name that is a well-established identifier of the Complainant’sgoods and services for an improper competing commercial purpose” and this has been done “with the intent to mislead and divert consumers or to tarnish theMarks at issue”. As a consequence the Respondent is said to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
Bad faith registration and use
5.5The Complainant contends that given the similarity between the Domain Nameand the Complainant’s “Marks”, and the competing businesses of the parties, a presumption must be made that the Respondent was aware of the existence of theComplainant and its “Marks” at the time it registered the Domain Name.5.6This is said to be evidence:(i)that by means of the Domain Name the Respondent has intentionallyattempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to his website or