WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION NovAtel Inc. v. CONG TY TNHH Case No. D2019-1954 1. The Parties

The Complainant is NovAtel Inc., Canada, represented by Carr Intellectual Property Law, United States of America.

The Respondent is CONG TY TNHH, Switzerland. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 9, 2019. On August 12, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 13, 2019, 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 August 15, 2019, 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 August 16, 2019.

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 August 20, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 9, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 10, 2019.

The Center appointed Luiz E. Montaury Pimenta as the sole panelist in this matter on September 17, 2019. 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 is a company specialized in GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) products and systems. The Complainant markets and distributes its products under the NOVATEL mark and maintains its website at the domain name , registered since September 4, 1995.

The NOVATEL mark was first used by the Complainant at least as early as June of 1992 and registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on July 17, 2001, registration No. 2,468,649, in class 09 for the following goods: navigation and positioning transceivers, receivers, antennas, integrated circuits, circuit boards, data processors, instruments, computer hardware, firmware, GPS receivers in various configurations for use in global positioning systems, world-wide ground reference stations and related space based satellite systems, having use in surveying, tracking, positioning, locating, mapping, measuring, communicating and other telemetry-enabled measuring and locating.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 23, 2018.

The disputed domain name currently does not resolve to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's NOVATEL mark, considering that the disputed domain name contains the NOVATEL mark in its entirety, causing a likelihood of confusion as to the source and/or sponsorship of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant further alleges that the registration of the disputed domain name can be considered as a case of typosquatting, as the repeated letter “t” does not significantly affect the appearance or pronunciation of the disputed domain name and does not mitigate the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s NOVATEL trademark.

In addition, the Complainant affirms that the designation of a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) such as “.com” does not prevent the conclusion that the disputed domain name and the NOVATEL mark are confusingly similar, as noted in prior panels’ decisions.

Moreover, the Complainant argues that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since the Respondent is neither commonly known by the name “novatel” nor is affiliated with the Complainant. The Complainant also alleges that the Respondent does not own any trademark rights related to the “novatel” term.

The Complainant also claims that its NOVATEL trademark registration precedes the registration of the disputed domain name, and the Complainant has never authorized, consented to, or licensed the NOVATEL mark to the Respondent.

The Complainant adds that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name and has made no reasonable preparations to use the disputed domain name.

In regard to bad faith in registration and use of the disputed domain name, the Complainant alleges that the non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith. The Complainant argues that it is implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the NOVATEL mark when registering the disputed domain name, given that the Complainant has been using the NOVATEL mark for over twenty-six (26) years. B. Respondent

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

The Policy establishes three elements, specified in paragraph 4(