WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Intuit Inc. v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyG / Markus Tamm Case No. D2018-2000 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Intuit Inc., Legal Department of Mountain View, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Fenwick & West, LLP, United States.

The Respondent is Domain Administrator, See PrivacyG of Phoenix, United States / Markus Tamm of Jelgava, Latvia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 1, 2018. On September 3, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On September 3, 2018, 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 September 7, 2018 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 September 11, 2018.

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 September 12, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 2, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 3, 2018.

The Center appointed Flip Jan Claude Petillion as the sole panelist in this matter on October 10, 2018. 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, Intuit Inc., is a provider of business and financial management software and online solutions. One of the Complainant’s flagship products is its TURBOTAX tax software and online solutions that enable individuals and small business owners to prepare and file their personal income taxes and small business taxes, respectively.

The Complainant is the holder of a multitude of trade- and service mark registrations across various jurisdictions throughout the world for the mark TURBOTAX, which it uses in connection with its business. The Complainant’s trademark portfolio includes, inter alia, the following trade- and service mark registrations:

- TURBOTAX, word mark registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) under No. 1369883 on November 12, 1985 in class 9,

- TURBOTAX, word mark registered with the USPTO under No. 2512370 on November 27, 2001 in class 35,

- TURBOTAX, word mark registered with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) under No. 006630404 on January 29, 2009 in classes 9, 35, 36 and 42,

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on April 23, 2002. The Disputed Domain Name redirects to the domain name which provides links to third party websites offering tax products and services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant considers the Disputed Domain Name to be confusingly similar to trademarks and service marks in which it claims to have rights. The Complainant further claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent has not used the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a legitimate use. Also, according to the Complainant, the Respondent has not been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name and is in no way affiliated with the Complainant. Finally, the Complainant claims that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the Respondent knew, or at least should have known, of the existence of the Complainant’s trademark and that this constitutes a clear case of typosquatting. B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 15 of the Rules provides that the Panel is to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.

The onus is on the Complainant to make out its case and it is apparent, both from the terms of the Policy and the dec