The Complainant is AREVA of Paris, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
The Respondent is Whois privacy services, provided by DomainProtect LLC of Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation / Igor Stepanov of Moscow, Russian Federation. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain name is registered with INSTANTNAMES LLC (“First Registrar”).
The disputed domain name is registered with Fiducia LLC, Latvijas Parstavnieciba (the “Second Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 7, 2013. On June 7, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On June 18, 2013, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 18, 2013, 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 amended Complaint on June 21, 2013.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 June 24, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 14, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 15, 2013.
The Center appointed Halvor Manshaus as the sole panelist in this matter on July 19, 2013. 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 is a French company, with its head offices in Paris, France. Founded in 2001, the Complainant is a global leading company within the nuclear power and nuclear energy industry, and has an industrial presence on each of the world’s continents. In addition to nuclear energy, the Complainant is also active within the fields of renewable energies. Also, the Complainant conducts patronage activities in countries in which the Complainant operates. These activities are conducted through the Areva Foundation (“Fondation Areva” in French).
The Complainant is the owner of several AREVA trademarks across the world, including International Trademark Registration no. 783282, registered on November 28, 2001, and International Trademark Registration no. 839880, registered on July 16, 2004.
In addition, the Complainant owns several domain names containing the mark AREVA and variations of Areva Founcation/Fondation Areva.
The Respondent is Whois privacy services, provided by DomainProtect LLC of Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation / Igor Stepanov of Moscow, Russian Federation. The disputed domain names were registered on November 22, 2012. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or at least confusingly similar to its famous and well-known mark AREVA.
Further, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way, nor has the Respondent been authorized by the Complainant to make use of the mark AREVA. Also, the Respondent is not called or commonly known as AREVA or any variations thereof, nor does the Respondent have any previous or prior rights to said name or mark. In addition, the Respondent does not use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The websites corresponding to the disputed domain names are pay-per-click websites featuring sponsored links, some of which refer to products within the field of energy services. Further, the disputed domain names are being offered for sale. The Complainant finds it extremely unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of the name and mark AREVA before registering the disputed domain names. On the contrary, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names as to create a confusing similarity between the Complainant’s name and mark AREVA. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the presented evidence, the Complainant has successfully demonstrated its rights to the mark AREVA.
Both of the disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant's trademark AREVA in full.
The disputed domain name only differs from the Complainant’s mark AREVA by the inclusion of “energie”. The mere addition of such a generic suffix is not sufficient to avoid confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark of the Complainant. This follows from several UDRP decisions, for instance Dr. Ing. H.c. F. Porsche AG v. Rojeen Rayaneh,WIPO Case No. D2004-0488; Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Kimi DeLuca,WIPO Case No. D2007-0252; and Siemens AG v. Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft,WIPO Case No. D2011-1163. Also, as the Complainant operates within the field of nuclear and renewable energies, the addition of “energie”, in the Panel’s view, increases the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the trademark of the Complainant.
The disputed domain name only differs from the Complainant’s mark AREVA by the inclusion of “fondation”. As mentioned above, the mere addition of a generic suffix is not sufficient in order to avoid a confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. Moreover, the Panel notes that the Complainant conducts patronage activities under the name Areva Foundation/Fondation Areva. Thus, the addition of the suffix “fondation” enhances the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark, and is fitted to strengthen the impression that the disputed domain name belongs to or is affiliated with the Complainant.
Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are identical to or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark AREVA. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
According to the Complainant, the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. There is no affiliation between the Complainant and the Respondent, nor has the Respondent been granted any authorization or similar to make use of the mark AREVA.
The Panel finds that the Respondent is not known as AREVA or any variations of said mark; nor is the Respondent an authorized dealer of the Complainant’s goods or services. The Panel finds no evidence that the Respondent has any prior trademark rights or proprietary rights to the mark AREVA. Under the circumstances, the Respondent cannot claim any bona fide or legitimate use of the mark AREVA, cf. Guerlain S.A. v. Peikang,WIPO Case No. D2000-0055.
It follows from previous UDRP decisions that it is sufficient for a complainant to make a prima facie showing of its assertion under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, cf. the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 2.1. The presented evidence and circumstances referred to by the Complainant is, in the Panel’s view, sufficient to establish a prima facie showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Thus, the Panel concludes that the Respondent does not have any rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The websites corresponding to the disputed domain names are typical pay-per-click websites, featuring, inter alia, links to websites featuring energy related products. The Respondent achieves, or may achieve, financial gain when web users, looking for services or goods offered by the Complainant, are diverted to the websites corresponding to the disputed domain names. Further, it follows from previous UDRP decisions that the registration and use of a domain name in order to re-direct Internet users to websites that offer products and services in competition with a complainant’s services, constitutes bad faith registration and use. The Panel refers to Encyclopedia Britannica Inc. v. S,WIPO Case No. D2000-0753 and YAHOO! Inc. v. David Murray,WIPO Case No. D2001-1319.
Moreover, the websites corresponding to the disputed domain names refer to a third party website on which one can inquire about purchasing the disputed domain names, which further demonstrates that the websites corresponding to the disputed domain names are being used in bad faith, cf. Rawlings Sporting Goods Company, Inc. v. Standard Bearer Enterprises Limited,WIPO Case No. D2010-1127 and Mamar, Inc. v. Order Your Domains,WIPO Case No. D2005-1163.
It is highly unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s famous mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain names. This view is strengthened by the fact that the domain name suffixes chosen by the Respondent, “energie” and “fondation”, are terms commonly associated with the Complainant’s activities and business.
Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. 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 names and be transferred to the Complainant.
Halvor Manshaus
Sole Panelist
Date: August 2, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy