The Complainant is Natixis of Paris, France, represented by Inlex IP Expertise of Paris, France.
The Respondent is Sylvia Postler of Bamberg, Germany. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 5, 2015. On June 8, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 8, 2015, 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 June 11, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 1, 2015.
On June 10, 2015 the Respondent sent an email communication to the Center and Complainant containing the following message: “There is nothing to worry about, the domain has already been deleted.” Following this communication, on June 12, 2015, the Center transmitted an email to the parties asking if they wished to suspend the administrative proceeding for a settlement. On July 2, 2015, the Complainant requested the continuation of the proceeding because the Respondent did not cooperate, particularly she did not provide the Complainant with the corresponding code necessary for the transfer. On July 6, 2015, the Center confirmed that the proceeding would continue, as requested by the Complainant. Another email communication was received on the same date from the Respondent as follows: “How on earth do you want us to cancel a domain without the domain reaching his expiring date, we have already informed you that it has already been deleted from our server, what else do you want us to do.” .
Except for the above mentioned email communications, the Respondent did not submit any formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 6, 2015.
The Center appointed Marilena Comanescu as the sole panelist in this matter on July 15, 2015. 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 language of the proceeding is English. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a corporate and financial services company based in France, having more than 15,000 employees in 36 countries. Particularly from its extensive use and awards received, the Complainant claims that its trademark NATIXIS enjoys a wide notoriety in France and worldwide.
The Complainant holds many worldwide trademark registrations for NATIXIS, such as the Community Trademark registration number 005129176 for the word “natixis” filed on June 12, 2006, and covering goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36 and 38.
The Complainant also holds numerous domain names reflecting the trademark NATIXIS, such as , and .
The disputed domain name was created on March 17, 2015. At the time the Complaint was filed, the disputed domain name did not resolve to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is nearly identical to its commercial name, official website “www.” and trademark NATIXIS, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent
Except for the above mentioned email communications, the Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant can only succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy if the following circumstances are met:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which complainant has rights; and
(ii) respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the NATIXIS trademark, holding registrations worldwide since at least 2006, including in Germany, where the Respondent appears to be located.
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark NATIXIS in its entirety with an additional letter “i”. The majority of the UDRP panels have considered that a domain name which contains a common or obvious misspelling of a trademark (i.e., typosquatting) normally will be found to be confusingly similar to such trademark, where the misspelled trademark remains the dominant or principal component of the domain name. See paragraph 1.10 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”).
Further, it is well established in decisions under the UDRP that indicators for generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”, e.g., “.com”, “.info”, “.net”, “.org”) are typically irrelevant to the consideration of confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name.
Given the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark NATIXIS, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant asserts that it has given no authorization to the Respondent to use its well-known trademark; that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; that the Respondent’s name does not seem to include the word “natixiis”; and that since its registration the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. In line with previous UDRP decisions made in similar circumstances, the Panel accepts that the Complainant has provided a prima facie case of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in relation to the disputed domain name, and the burden of production shifts to the Respondent.
The Respondent chose not to challenge the Complainant’s allegations. There is no evidence before the Panel to support the contrary, and therefore the Panel accepts these arguments as facts.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name , pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainant’s trademark NATIXIS is distinctive and has been registered and used worldwide since at least 2006. Further, the Complainant is promoting its services, inter alia, on its official website “www.” since 2006.
The disputed domain name was created in 2015 and incorporates the NATIXIS trademark in its entirety with an additional letter “i” which can be considered as a common typographical error.
At the time of filing of the Complaint the disputed domain name resolved to an inactive website. The passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith. See paragraph 3.2 of theWIPO Overview 2.0.
Furthermore, the Panel notes the Respondent’s email communications of June 10 and July 6, 2015, from which the Panel reasonably infers that the Respondent knew she had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as she was in settlement discussions with the Complainant but she was not able to perform any “cancel[lation of the] domain name without the domain reaching his expiry date”. This attitude is considered by the Panel not in favor of the Respondent; in addition to that, the Panel notes that she did not provide any good faith argument for registering the disputed domain name, she did not contest the Complainant’s allegations and she claimed to be unable to cancel the disputed domain name.
For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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.
Marilena Comanescu
Sole Panelist
Date: July 29, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy