The disputed domain name was <arlabenefit.com>, the trademark was ARLA and ARLABENEFITS and the Complainant had registered <arlabenefits.com>.
As an additional factor to the usual UDRP analysis, the panel found bad faith by the Respondent preventing the trademark owner from registering a mark in a corresponding domain name. The panel said:
“In addition, the Panel notes a pattern of conduct by the Respondent of preventing a trademark holder from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, notably by (but not limited to) registering the <arlalogon.com> domain name, which is also strongly indicative of bad faith. See Home Interiors & Gifts, Inc. v. Home Interiors, (WIPO Case No. D2000-0010).
Furthermore, the Panel can discern no legitimate basis for the Respondent’s use of a privacy shield service and considers this fact under the present circumstances as corroborative of bad faith. See Gaylord Entertainment Company v. Nevis Domains LLC, (WIPO Case No. D2006-0523).” (emphasis added).