"First and foremost, the Disputed Domain Name is virtually identical to Complainant’s Trademark. Complainant’s Trademark is fanciful, and for this reason it is very unlikely that Respondent could have generated the Disputed Domain Name independently. The more reasonable explanation is that Respondent intentionally copied Complainant’s Trademark."
"Further, the look and feel of the website to which the Disputed Domain Name directs Internet users (“Respondent’s Website”) is very similar to the first page of the website to which Complainant’s domain name directs. Ordinarily, the contents of a complainant’s and/or a respondent’s websites are not relevant to an analysis under the Policy. Ordinarily the concern under the Policy is with “initial interest confusion” and the comparisons are at the level of the involved trademark and disputed domain name. "
The Panel ordered the disputed domain name to be transferred from the respondent to the complainant.
You can read the decision here .



