The Complainants are Computer Sciences Corporation (the Complainant No. 1) of Falls Church, Virginia, United States of America, and CSC Deutschland Solutions GmbH (the Complainant No. 2) of Wiesbaden, Germany, represented by Kuentzle Rechtsanwälte, Germany.
The Respondent is Olivier Terroux of Paris, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Cronon AG Berlin, Niederlassung Regensburg. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 30, 2012. On March 30, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to Cronon AG Berlin, Niederlassung Regensburg a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 2, 2012, Cronon AG Berlin, Niederlassung Regensburg 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” 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 April 4, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 24, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 25, 2012.
The Center appointed Fabrizio Bedarida as the sole panelist in this matter on May 4, 2012. 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 Complaint was submitted in English, nevertheless, the Complainants, referring to the language of the Registration Agreement, requested that the language of the proceedings be German. As a matter of fact, as it was confirmed by the concerned Registrar, the language of the Registration Agreement is English. Consequently, having considered the language of the registration agreement, that the Complaint was submitted in English and that the Respondent did not file any response, the Panel does not see any reason to conduct the proceeding in German. Therefore, the Complainants’ request is denied and the proceeding is conducted in English. 4. Factual Background
The Complainants in this administrative proceeding are Computer Sciences Corporation (the Complainant No. 1) of Falls Church, Virginia, United States of America, and CSC Deutschland Solutions GmbH (the Complainant No. 2) of Wiesbaden, Germany. Hereinafter, unless specified otherwise, the Complainants will be referred to as the Complainant. The Complainant No. 1 founded in1959 in Virginia is one of the leading companies to provide technology enabled business solutions and services. In 2011 the Complainant generated a 12 month revenue of 16.0 billion USD. In the same year the Fortune magazine nominated the Complainant among the “World’s Most Admired Companies in 2011”.
The Complainant No. 1 has proved to own many trademark registrations for the CSC trademark.
The Complainant’s trademark registrations for the trademark CSC, were registered several decades earlier than the disputed domain name, which according to the publicly available WhoIs database, was registered on January 9, 2012.
The Respondent is Olivier Terroux of Paris, France. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant claims that:
1) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CSC trademark because CSC is the only distinctive component of the disputed domain name. “France” being solely descriptive, indicating the locality where the services are provided.
2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
3) The Respondent is a former employee of the Complainant and that having the internal knowledge of an employee, the Respondent established a “phishing” website under the disputed domain name.
4) The website of the Respondent is exactly the same as the website of the Complainant. Thus the website of the Respondent gives the impression that it is a website of the Complainant.
5) The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any license or consent, expressed or implied, to use the CSC trademark in a domain name or in any other manner.
6) The Respondent has never been known by the disputed domain name and has no legitimate interest in the CSC trademark or in the name “csc”.
7) The disputed domain name was registered in bad faith because the Respondent copied the website of the Complainant with the intention to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. Moreover, the Respondent attempted to open a bank account in Malaysia in the name of the Complainant.
The Complainant requests that the Panel issue a decision that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
The Complainant has established that it has rights in the CSC trademark and has stated that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to it.
In order to substantiate this claim, the Complainant has argued that, CSC is the only distinctive part of the disputed domain name and that the addition of the term “France” to the CSC trademark does not avoid the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s mark.
This Panel agrees with the Complainant’s contention that CSC is the only distinctive part. Moreover, it is now well established by many previous UDRP decisions that the addition of a generic term (in this case a geographic term) to a trademark is not sufficient to avoid confusing similarity.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. A. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant must show that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. A respondent in a UDRP proceeding does not assume the burden of proof, but may establish a right or legitimate interest in a domain name by demonstrating in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy:
i) that before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent used or made 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) that the respondent is commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has not acquired any trademark rights; or
iii) that the respondent intends to make 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.
This Panel finds that here, the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant, which has not licensed or otherwise authorised the Respondent to use or register any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the name “csc” or by a similar name, and has not alleged any facts to justify any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not appear to make any legitimate use of the disputed domain name for non commercial activities. Finally, the Respondent has not replied to the Complaint, proving or at least alleging in any other way any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. B. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
For the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or has acquired 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 of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the holder’s documented 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 a corresponding domain name, provided that 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 the holder’s website or other online 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 or service on the respondent’s website or location.
Accordingly, for a complainant to succeed, the Panel must be satisfied that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Considering the Complainant’s trademark registrations, the extensive use and promotion on the Internet on the one hand, and on the other, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to present online an exact copy of the website of the Complainant, the non-contested claim that the Respondent was an employee of the Complainant and in the absence of contrary evidence, the Panel finds that:
1) the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademarks, products and services and intentionally intended to create an association with the Complainant and its business.
2) that the Respondent, for the contents displayed on his website, must have had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name;
3) that the above described use of the disputed domain name, i.e., to divert Internet traffic to the Respondent’s website which is a copy of the website of the Complainant supports an inference of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name;
4) the fact that the Respondent is a former employee of the Complainant is also inference of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Panel finds on the basis of the evidence presented that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision
For 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 No. 1, i.e. Computer Sciences Corporation.
Fabrizio Bedarida
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 16, 2012
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy