WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Groupama SA v. Domain Drop S.A.
Case No. D2007-1188
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Groupama SA, of Paris, France, represented by Cabinet Iteanu & Associes, France.
The Respondent is Domain Drop S.A., of Charlestown, Saint Kitts and Nevis, West Indies.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with DomainDoorman, LLC.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 9, 2007. On August 16, 2007, the Center transmitted by email to DomainDoorman, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On August 20, 2007, DomainDoorman, LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 23, 2007. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 12, 2007. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 17, 2007.
The Center appointed Mary Padbury as the sole panelist in this matter on October 2, 2007. 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. The Panel subsequently extended the decision due date to November 8, 2007.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant was incorporated in France on December 11, 1987. The Complainant traces its origins to 1840 and the French agricultural community. It is now one of the world’s leading mutual property and casualty insurers and one of Europe’s largest financial services groups.
The Complainant is the owner of Community Trademark No. 001210863 for the mark: GROUPAMA registered as of June 10, 1999 in classes 35, 36, 37, 39 and 42, Community Trademark No. 003543139 for the mark: GROUPAMA & Design registered as of October 15, 2003 in classes 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42 and 45, International Trademark No. 800577 registered as of October 15, 2002 for the mark: GROUPAMA & Design in classes 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 42 for Bulgaria, Switzerland, China, Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Vietnam, Estonia, Lithuania and Turkey and Hong Kong Trade Mark No. 200316074 registered as of June 11, 2002 for GROUPAMA & Design in class 37.
The Respondent registered the domain name on April 14, 2006.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that domain name, , is confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights because the word “Groupama” is the only distinctive element in the domain name and mark with “www” being a common prefix for host names used for identifying Internet websites and “.com” being merely the top level domain name suffix. The Complainant submits that, by registering the domain name, the Respondent intends to attract traffic intended for the Complainant’s website at “”, from Internet users who forget to type the separation dot between “www” and “groupama”, or who simply mistype the address.
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its trademark. The Respondent is not using the domain name for a website of its own, but as an automated search engine generating links on insurance products including links to third parties who are competitors of the Complainant. When Internet users access the Respondent’s address, advertisement windows appear showing an affiliation to which provides revenue for generating advertisement windows. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is using the domain name to divert traffic intended for the Complainant’s website to its own for the purpose of earning click-through revenues from Internet users searching for the Complainant’s website.
The Complainant also submits that the Respondent cannot demonstrate any use of the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name and cannot demonstrate any legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name.
The Complainant lastly contends that the domain name was registered, and is being used, by the Respondent in bad faith. The Complainant repeats the contention that by registering the domain name, the Respondent is engaging in the practice of typo squatting to attempt to divert traffic intended for the Complainant’s website to its own for the purpose of earning click-through revenues from Internet users searching for the Complainant’s website and that this constitutes bad faith. The Complainant asserts that the use of the domain name by the Respondent involves an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website or of the insurance services advertised by the website. Lastly, the Complainant notes that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering trademarks as domain names and using them to attract Internet traffic, and has been the subject of numerous UDRP rulings considering its bad faith and registration and use of these domain names and cases (see, for example, Cr�dit Industriel et Commercial S.A v. Domain Drop S.A.,WIPO Case No. D2007-0532; PREPADOM v. Domain Drop S.A.,WIPO Case No. D2006-0917; Veolia Environment v. Domain Drop S.A.,WIPO Case No. D2006-1029; Kiloutou v. Domain Drop SA,WIPO Case No. D2006-1105; Pelikan Vertriebs Gesellschaft mbH & Co. KG. v. Domain Drop S.A.,WIPO Case No. D2007-0306; and Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. v. Domain Drop S.A.,WIPO Case No. D2007-0273.)
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
The Panel must decide a complaint on the basis of the statements in documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and the Supplementary Rules. The Complainant has the onus of proving three elements:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark: GROUPAMA. The domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark and the addition of “www” and “.com” do not preclude confusion.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel must decide whether the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. In doing so, regard may be had to circumstances which might demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to the domain name as follows:
(i) before notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the Respondent, as an individual, business, or other organization, has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the Respondent, making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
In relation to paragraph (i) the domain name has not been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Further, in relation to paragraph (ii), there is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the domain name as an individual, business or other organization. Lastly, this is not a case involving a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name without intent for commercial gain, to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The Panel accepts that the Respondent is using the domain name to divert traffic intended for the Complainant’s website to its own for the purpose of earning click-through revenues from Internet users searching for the Complainant’s website. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in the domain name.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel is satisfied that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The following non-exclusive list of circumstances, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of registration in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in domain name in a corresponding domain name, provided the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product of service on your website or location.
There is no provided evidence of the conduct in (i) and (iii) above. In relation to paragraph (iv), it would appear that the Respondent’s registration of the domain name is intended to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location. The Respondent’s registration of the website seems a clear attempt to divert traffic intended for the Complainant’s website to its own for the purpose of earning click-through revenues from Internet users searching for the Complainant’s website. This is clearly use in bad faith. Further, the apparent pattern of such conduct suggests the Respondent may also have registered the domain name in order to prevent the Complainant, as owner of the trademark, from reflecting the mark in a domain name within paragraph (ii). The inclusion in the domain name of the prefix “www” in combination with the unusual term “GROUPAMA”, Complainant’s mark, strongly suggests not only knowledge of the Complainant, but a clear intent to cause confusion with the Complainant’s mark – consistent with a typical typosquatting case.
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Mary Padbury
Sole Panelist
Dated: November 8, 2007
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy