WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Alfresco Software Ltd. v. WhoIsGuard Protected, WhoIsGuard, Inc. / Dagogo Almano Case No. D2018-2103 1. The Parties

Complainant is Alfresco Software Ltd of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the “United Kingdom”) represented by Reed Smith LLP, The United States of America.

Respondent is WhoIsGuard Protected, WhoIsGuard, Inc of Panama, Dagogo Almano of the United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

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

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 13, 2018. On September 14, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On September 14, 2018 the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on October 3, 2018 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on October 9, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 12, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 1, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on November 5, 2018.

The Center appointed Clive L. Elliott as the sole panelist in this matter on November 11, 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

According to WhoIs the Domain Name was registered on August 24, 2018.

Complainant was founded in 2005 and offers a wide variety of software products and services using the ALFRESCO mark (“Complainant’s Mark”).

Complainant’s parent company, Alfresco Software, Inc (“Complainant’s Parent”) is the owner of Complainant’s Mark, under United States registration number 3279537, dated August 14, 2007. Complainant’s Parent is also the owner of its “flower petal” design mark (“Flower Design”).

The Flower Design and Complainant’s Mark are used by Complainant and Complainant’s Parent in advertising and promotion of products and services provided by Complainant and Complainant’s Parent.

In addition to the United States registration, Complainant’s Mark and Flower Design are registered in the following jurisdictions:

Trademark

Country

Registration Number

ALFRESCO

European Union

4668075

ALFRESCO

China

5288184

ALFRESCO

China

5288185

ALFRESCO

India

1705132

ALFRESCO

India

853138

ALFRESCO

Japan

5510855

European Union

4698122

China

5288201

China

5288183

Japan

5510854

India

1647022

India

718232 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

Complainant states that in August 2018 it became aware that the Domain Name had been acquired by Respondent.

Complainant asserts that Respondent is engaging in typosquatting by registering and using a Domain Name which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark. The Domain Name mimics Complainant’s Mark and differs by only one letter (i.e., the use of “n” in place of “r”). The likelihood of confusion is heightened by the similar appearances shared by the letters “n” and “r” when displayed in emails and web browser address bars, thereby creating a web address and identity which is nearly identical to Complainant’s Mark. The incorporation of the genergic Top-Level Domain (“Gtld”) suffix “.com” does not relieve any confusing similarity.

Complainant asserts that Respondent has been using the Domain Name to deceive Complainant’s clients by sending email communications which falsely represent that they originate from an authorized representative of Complainant. The emails request the recipients to direct all future payments meant for Complainant to certain bank accounts in the United States and the United Kingdom which are not owned by