The Complainant is Europcar International S.A.S.U of Voisins-le-Bretonneux, France, represented by Taylor Wessing, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the "UK").
The Respondent is Walid Ben Ayed of Ariana, Tunisia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Go France Domains, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on August 19, 2014. On August 20, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 21, 2014, the Registrar 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 August 26, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 15, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on September 16, 2014.
The Center appointed Johan Sjöbeck as the sole panelist in this matter on September 19, 2014. 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 has submitted evidence that it is the owner of a number of trademark registrations in numerous countries for EUROPCAR, including the following:
- French trademark EUROPCAR with registration No. 98743597 from 1998.
- International trademark EUROPCAR (device) with registration No. 426021 from 1976. The trademark designates Tunisia, the location of the Respondent.
- United States of America ("US") trademark EUROPCAR with registration No. 1066416 from 1977.
- Community trademark EUROPCAR (device) with registration No. 003993789 from 2006.
- Community trademark EUROPCAR CHAUFFEUR SERVICE (device) with registration No. 003345998 from 2005.
- International trademark EUROPCAR CHAUFFEUR SERVICE (device) with registration No. 951643 from 2007.
- Community trademark EUROPCAR FLEET SERVICES with registration No. 002577179 from 2003.
The disputed domain name was registered on July 9, 2014. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant states that it was incorporated on October 30, 1995 but began its initial operations under the EUROPCAR trademark in France in 1949. The Complainant is part of the Europcar group of companies which offers car rental services in over 140 countries across the world.
The only distinctive element of the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's trademark. The trademark is a made up word from combining the first five letters of the word "Europe" and the word "car". Given the high level of distinctiveness, there is a high likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the trademark.
The Complainant's service marks include the term "service" or its plural "services" together with the term "Europcar". Since the disputed domain name consists of the two words "Europcar" and "services", the domain name is also confusingly similar to the Complainant's service marks.
Furthermore, each of the Complainant's trademarks is registered for a number of services, including car rental services. Some of the Complainant's trademarks are registered exclusively for services with no registrations for any goods. The trademarks are therefore most commonly associated with services, particular car rental services. There is therefore a high likelihood of confusion between each of the trademarks and the disputed domain name.
The Complainant owns substantial goodwill in the mark EUROPCAR and the phrase "Europcar Services". Google searches for the term "Europcar services" provide results, almost exclusively related to the Complainant.
The Complainant is the holder of the domain name which is in all material respects identical or highly identical to the disputed domain name.
The Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. The disputed domain name is redirected to a holding page. The Respondent does not have any Internet presence known to "europcar" and does not own any registered trademarks for the words "Europcar" and/or "services". Therefore, the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant believes that the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name for the purpose of selling or renting it to the Complainant or to take unfair advantage of the Complainant's reputation and goodwill. The website, to which the disputed domain name resolves, displays adverts for car rental services offered by competitors of the Complainant. This constitutes interference with and disruption of the Complainant's business. The Complainant's international EUROPCAR trademark designates Tunisia, the country in which the Respondent is resident. Since the Complainant has been active in Tunisia for a number of years it is unlikely that the Respondent would have been unaware of the Complainant's trademarks or its reputation for car rental services. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is, according to the submitted evidence, the owner of the registered trademark EUROPCAR. The disputed domain name comprises the Complainant's trademark EUROPCAR in its entirety.
A difference between the disputed domain name and the EUROPCAR trademark is the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") suffix ".services". It is standard practice to disregard the top-level suffix under the confusingly similar test, except in cases where the applicable top-level suffix may itself form part of the relevant trademark. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (the "WIPO Overview 2.0"), paragraph 1.2. Even if one would take the addition of the top-level suffix ".services" into account, the Panel finds that it would not eliminate the confusing similarity between Complainant's registered trademark EUROPCAR and the disputed domain name because the ability for a descriptive term, such as "services", to distinguish the domain name from the trademark, is limited in this case.
Having the above in mind, it is the opinion of the Panel that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark and that the Complainant has proved the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant must show that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name. The Respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by demonstrating in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy any of the following:
(i) that it has made preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to the dispute; or
(ii) that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if it has not acquired any trademark rights; or
(iii) that it intends to make a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark.
The Complainant's trademark registration for EUROPCAR predates the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name .
According to the submitted evidence, the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, displays commercial advertisements for third party website offering car rental services that directly compete with the Complainant's services. Thus, the evidence in the case indicates that the Respondent is neither making a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark.
Although given the opportunity, the Respondent has not submitted any evidence indicating that the Respondent is the owner of any trademark rights or that he is commonly known by the disputed domain name.
By not submitting any formal Response, the Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Thus, there is no evidence in the case that refutes the Complainant's submissions, and the Panel concludes that the Complainant has also proved the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, evidence of bad faith registration and use include without limitation:
(i) circumstances indicating the disputed domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to the owner of a trademark or to a competitor of the trademark owner, for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or
(ii) circumstances indicating that the disputed domain name was registered in order to prevent the owner of a trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding disputed domain name, provided there is a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) circumstances indicating that the disputed domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) circumstances indicating that the disputed domain name has intentionally been used in an attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on that website or location.
The Complainant's international trademark EUROPCAR from 1976 designates Tunisia, the country in which the Respondent resides as indicated above under Section 4. The Complainant has submitted evidence demonstrating that the Complainant has been offering car rental services in Tunisia for a number of years. Considering the above and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant's trademark EUROPCAR when registering the disputed domain name .
Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a website which displays commercial advertisements, some of which promote car rental services offered by the Complainant's competitors. Thus, the evidence in the case before the Panel indicates that the disputed domain name has intentionally been used in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the websites or of a product or service on the website.
There is no evidence in the case that refutes the Complainant's submissions.
The Panel concludes that the Complainant has proved the requirements under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy and that the disputed domain name has been registered and is 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 name be transferred to the Complainant.
Johan Sjöbeck
Sole Panelist
Date: October 2, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy