## Facts

- Facebook, Inc. owned multiple domestic and international trademark registrations for the mark FACEBOOK, including Community Trade Mark No. 006455687, registered October 7, 2008.
- Facebook began doing business in 2004 and, by 2013, operated a globally known social-networking service; it was ranked as the most visited website worldwide and had the second-highest traffic in Slovakia, where the respondent was based.
- Respondent Radoslav Stach of Presov, Slovakia registered the domain name `<facebok.pw>` on or about March 26, 2013—years after Facebook’s trademark registrations and widespread recognition.
- The disputed domain name differed from FACEBOOK only by omission of a single letter (“o”) and was alleged to be a deliberate misspelling designed to capture user typing errors.
- Facebook asserted it was not affiliated with respondent and had not licensed or authorized respondent to use the FACEBOOK mark in any manner.
- Facebook alleged respondent used `<facebok.pw>` for a website displaying popular search topics and links intended to generate click-through fees for respondent.
- Facebook submitted evidence that respondent had engaged in a pattern of registering domain names similar to well-known marks with altered or additional letters.
- Facebook filed a complaint in August 2013 under ICANN’s Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS), seeking suspension of the domain name for the life of the registration.
- Respondent did not file a response compliant with the URS rules; instead, respondent sent a brief email stating he had been offline and wanted the domain removed from his account.
- A National Arbitration Forum (NAF) URS examiner reviewed the written record under the URS “clear and convincing evidence” standard.

## Issues

1. Whether `<facebok.pw>` is identical or confusingly similar to a valid trademark in which Facebook has rights for purposes of the URS.
2. Whether respondent lacked any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name `<facebok.pw>`.
3. Whether `<facebok.pw>` was registered and used in bad faith, proven by clear and convincing evidence, such that URS suspension was warranted.

## Decision

- The examiner granted Facebook’s URS complaint and issued a default determination in Facebook’s favor.
- The examiner found `<facebok.pw>` confusingly similar to FACEBOOK because the only difference was the absence of one letter (“o”) from the mark.
- The examiner treated the “.pw” top-level domain as irrelevant to the confusing-similarity comparison.
- The examiner found respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name where Facebook showed no authorization or affiliation, and the record reflected use consistent with click-through revenue rather than a bona fide offering or legitimate noncommercial use.
- The examiner found bad-faith registration and use based on the fame of the FACEBOOK mark, the misspelling consistent with typosquatting, the use of the domain to attract traffic for commercial gain through click-through fees, and evidence of a pattern of similar registrations.
- The examiner ordered the domain name suspended for the remainder of the registration period (the URS remedy sought by Facebook).

## Legal Principles

- A URS complainant must prove by clear and convincing evidence: (1) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the complainant holds valid rights, (2) the registrant has no legitimate right or interest in the domain name, and (3) the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
- A domain name that differs from a trademark by a minor misspelling, including omission of a single letter, can be confusingly similar under the URS.
- The generic top-level domain (such as “.pw”) is generally disregarded when assessing identity or confusing similarity.
- Where a complainant shows no authorization to use its mark and the domain is used for a link/search page aimed at generating click-through revenue, the registrant typically lacks rights or legitimate interests absent contrary proof.
- Bad faith may be inferred from registering a typo of a well-known mark to divert users and obtain commercial gain from likely confusion, including through pay-per-click or similar monetization.
- Evidence that a registrant has registered multiple domains mimicking famous marks with small alterations supports a finding of bad faith.
- URS relief is limited to suspension of the domain name for the life of the registration; it does not provide for transfer of the domain.

## Conclusion

In *Facebook, Inc. v. Radoslav*, the NAF URS examiner found by clear and convincing evidence that `<facebok.pw>` was a one-letter misspelling of the famous FACEBOOK mark, that respondent had no legitimate interest in the domain, and that respondent registered and used it in bad faith to profit from likely confusion through click-through activity and a broader pattern of similar registrations; the examiner therefore ordered the domain suspended for the duration of its registration.


Facebook, Inc. v. Radoslav, Claim No. FA1308001515825 (2013)