The Complainant is Najeti S.A.S. of Lumbres, France, represented by Day Pitney LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is John Doe, “Jean Jacques Durand” of Paris, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 4, 2012, in relation to the Domain Name , and the domain name . On April 5, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 5, 2012, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 12, 2012 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on April 17, 2012.
On April 15 and 16, 2012, the Respondent sent email communications to the Center in relation to the Domain Name.
On April 18, 2012, the Complainant submitted a request to suspend these proceedings to engage in settlement negotiations. The Center confirmed the proceedings as suspended on April 20, 2012.
On April 24, 2012, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint and requested the withdrawal of the proceedings relating to the second domain name named in the original Complaint, .
On May 11, 2012, the Complainant requested reinstitution of these proceedings with regards to the Domain Name, .
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendments to 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 May 14, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 3, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any formal response to the Complaint during the Response period. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 5, 2012.
The Center appointed Michel Vivant as the sole panelist in this matter on June 12, 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. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant registered several trademarks for NAJETI: French Trademark registration no. 3158982, registered on April 5 2002; International Registration no. 792481, registered on September 11, 2002; United States Trademark registration no. 2833793, registered on April 20, 2004, with April 5, 2002 as priority date.
The Domain Name was apparently registered on October 4,2011 by an individual called “Jean-Jacques Durand”, which appears to be an alias for the registrant of the Domain Name, as “Jean-Jacques Durand” is the name of the President of the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is identical to its Trademarks.
It asserts that a search on different databases did not reveal any trademark registrations for “Najeti” owned by the Respondent who cannot claim any right on the name “Najeti”.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, does not own any trademark or service mark registrations encompassing the Domain Name, does not operate a corporate entity encompassing the Domain Name, and is not making legitimate fair use of the Domain Name.
Last, it advances that the attitude of the Respondent can be only explained by the will of creating a likelihood of confusion. He specially emphasizes that the Respondent falsely passed himself off as Mr. Jean Jacques Durand, the Complainant’s President, and used later another false identity in order to engage a campaign of contacting entities, attempting to pass himself off as a Complainant employee to solicit investments and conduct business. It adds that the created confusion and those practices could lead to substantial damage for the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions, but its submitted comments to the Center on April 15 and 16, 2012 which do not affect the Panel’s substantive determination in this Decision. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To the Panel, the identity between the NAJETI Trademarks and the Domain Name is perfect under the Policy, as it is well established that the extension “.org” must not be taken into consideration.
The Panel finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is unquestionably satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
As the Complainant observes it, no link can be established to the satisfaction of this Panel between the Respondent and the name “Najeti” under the second requirement of the Policy. The Panel accepts the prima facie assertions of the Complainant, and finds that the Respondent has not demonstrated any circumstance establishing rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. And, moreover, it would be strange, if such a link, right or legitimate interest existed, that the Respondent feels the need to take the identity of the Complainant!
Accordingly, the Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds the fact the Respondent usurped the identity of Complainant’s President at the time of the registration in the WhoIs registrant details is in itself the clear expression of a bad faith to this Panel. But it is also convincing to note Complainant’s submissions demonstrating that the Domain Name was used afterwards by an individual called P. Beltoise, from an email address originating from the domain name, claiming allegedly in the name of the Complainant, even if it is not totally proved that the contentious emails came from the Respondent itself. In any case, holding a domain name, even passively, on the basis of the Respondent’s conduct in this case cannot be characterized as bona fide, and contrary to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy (see Pedone & Partners, Inc. v. Pedone and Partners,WIPO Case No. D2012-0827)
Accordingly, for the Panel the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is also satisfied. 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 domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Michel Vivant
Sole Panelist
Dated: June 25, 2012
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy