WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Association Robert Mazars v. INTEG Kumaran Case No. D2009-1679 1. The Parties
The Complainant is Association Robert Mazars of Paris, France, represented by PMR Avocats Law Firm, France.
The Respondent is INTEG Kumaran, of Tamil Nadu, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 8, 2009. On December 9, 2009, the Center transmitted by e-mail to Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 10, 2009, Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR transmitted by e-mail 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 Complaintsatisfied 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 17, 2009. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 6, 2010. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on January 7, 2010.
The Center appointed Richard Hill as the sole panelist in this matter on January 15, 2010. 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 owns numerous trademarks for the name MAZARS and markets various services at web sites incorporating that name.
The Respondent does not have any license or other authorization to use the Complainant's mark or to offer its services.
The contact information provided by the Respondent when it registered the disputed domain name is not accurate. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant alleges that it is a nonprofit organization which has been registered under the laws of France since 1992. It has registered trademark rights in the name MAZARS in many countries throughout the world, including the Respondent's country. It provides various services under that mark, in particular accounting, auditing, and legal services.
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark.
The Complainant states that it has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its marks, that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent is not using the dispute domain name in good faith.
According to the Complainant, the Respondent has not replied to any messages sent to his contact address. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is clear that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar (in the sense of the Policy) to the Complainant's mark, because it contains the mark (minus the letter “s”) and merely adds the common word “group” to form the disputed domain name. See PACCAR, Inc. v. Enyart Associates and T, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2000-0289 (May 26, 2000); see also Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Dennis Hoffman, WIPO Case No. D2000-0253 (May 29, 2000).
The Panel holds that the Complainant has satisfied this first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
From the evidence available on the present record, the Respondent does not appear to have any license or other authorization to use the Complainant's mark or to market its services. He is using the disputed domain name to point to a site that states “UNDER CONSTRUCTION”.
As the Complainant correctly points out, its name appears to be well-known, including in the Respondent's country, and it is difficult to conceive in these particular circumstances of any use by the Respondent of the disputed domain name that would not be illegitimate.
Where a party has registered and used a domain name in bad faith (see the discussion below), that party cannot be found to have made a bona fide offering of goods and services, see The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. and PNC Bank, N.A. v. Azra Khan,WIPO Case No. D2002-0701 (September 6, 2002); see also AltaVista Company v. Saeid Yomtobian,WIPO Case No. D2000-0937 (October 13, 2000). Thus, it cannot be said that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel holds that the Complainant has satisfied its burden of proof under this element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The notification of the Complaint to the Respondent by physical mail failed, because the package was returned with the notice “RECEIVER MOVED, NOT DELIVERED”. E-Mails sent by the Center to the Respondent at the “postmaster” address were also undeliverable, although the Panel notes that no bounce-back messages were received from the e-mail address provided by the Registrar. However, no reply was ever received from that address, nor indeed at all from the Respondent. The Panel concludes that the Respondent provided an incorrect address when it registered the disputed domain name.
Providing false or inaccurate contact information when registering a domain name can be evidence of bad faith registration and use in the sense of the Policy. See A. H. Belo Corporation v. King TV and 5 Kings,WIPO Case No. D2000-1336 (December 8, 2000); see also Ticketmaster Corporation v. Dmitri Prem,WIPO Case No. D2000-1550 (January 16, 2001); see also Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Scott A. Smithberger and QUIXTAR-IBO, WIPO Case No. D2000-0138 (April 19, 2000).
Noting the above and the circumstances of the case, consequently, the Panel holds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. 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 disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Richard Hill
Sole Panelist
Dated: January 19, 2010
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy