WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION The Terminix International Company Limited Partnership v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico Case No. D2018-2112 1. The Parties

The Complainant is The Terminix International Company Limited Partnership of Memphis, Tennessee, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Partridge Partners PC, United States.

The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico of Panama City, Panama. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 14, 2018. On September 17, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 18, 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 19, 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 21, 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 24, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 14, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 16, 2018.

The Center appointed Benoit Van Asbroeck as the sole panelist in this matter on October 23, 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, Terminix has been a provider of pest control services since 1928, serving millions of customers across twenty-two countries.

The Complainant is the owner of the trademark containing or comprising TERMINIX across many countries and, possesses a numerous trademark registrations, some of dating back to 1956. These registrations include:

- United States trademark with registration No. 1404366 registered on August 5, 1986 in International Class 37,

- United States trademark with registration No. 635715 registered on October 9, 1956 in International Class 37,

- United States trademark with registration No. 3586266 registered on March 10, 2009 in International Class 5,

- Panamanian trademark with registration No. 172447 registered on July 3, 2008 in International Class 37,

- Panamanian trademark with registration No. 120986 registered on May 16, 2002 in International Class 37,

The Complainant asserts that as a result of care and skill exercised in the sale and promotion of its Terminix services and products, the trademark TERMINIX has become famous.

Additionally, the Complainant is also the registrant of a domain name including TERMINIX trademark, .

The disputed domain name was registered on September 6, 2018, well after the Complainant secured rights to the trademarks. The disputed domain name initially resolved to a parked website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in the present case, as follows:

(a) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. It represents that the disputed domain name reproduces the term TERMINIX in its entirety except in respect of the reversal of the third and fourth letters, to become . According to the Complainant this simple inversing of the “r” and the “m” does not significantly affect the appearance of the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Relying on MasterCard International Incorporated v. Acme Mail,WIPO Case No. D2008-0701, the Complainant argues that this kind of reversing two letters in the Complainant’s trademark has been considered before.

(b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant asserts that it has rights in TERMINIX and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

The Respondent is and was not commonly known by the disputed domain name. There is further no indication of any registration of the “temrinix” trademark. Additionally, the Complainant has never authorized, licensed or any way permitted the Respondent to register and use the disputed domain name. Nor does the Respondent have an affiliation or connection with the Complainant.

Furthermore, the Respondent acted with opportunistic bad faith in having registered the disputed domain name in order to make an illegitimate use of it. The Respondent does not appear to have used the disputed domain name for any legitimate noncommercial purpose, the disputed domain name was registered for the purpose of diverting and siphoning Internet users to the Respondent’s website.

The Complainant argues that the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a well-known trademark by any entity that has no relationship to that trademark is i