The Complainant is Intrum Justitia Licensing AG of Zug, Switzerland, represented by BrandIT Legal AB, Sweden.
The Respondents are Larisa Simonova / Whois privacy services provided by DomainProtect LLC of Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NEUDOMAIN LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 16, 2015. On June 17, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On June 22, 2015, 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 June 22, 2015 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 June 22, 2015.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment 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 June 23, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 13, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 14, 2015.
The Center appointed Wolter Wefers Bettink as the sole panelist in this matter on July 21, 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. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is Europe’s leading credit management services company. Its services include credit decisions, sales ledger services, reminders, domestic and worldwide debt collection, debt surveillance, collection of written-off receivables, and purchase of outstanding receivables. The Complainant is present in 20 European countries and together with its network partners provides coverage across 180 countries. It services more than 75,000 clients worldwide with local and cross-border credit management support.
The Complainant is the owner of the word and figure mark INTRUM JUSTITA (the “Trade Mark”) which has been registered, inter alia, in the Russian Federation, as of 2006.
The Domain Name was created on August 25, 2007.
Originally, the Domain Name was registered on June 10, 1997 by Intrum Justitia BV, a company belonging to the same group as the Complainant. This registration lapsed on or around June 9, 2006 due to lack of renewal. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
According to the Complainant, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, as it incorporates the Trade Mark INTRUM JUSTITIA with a hyphen between the two words. As the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not add any distinctiveness to the Domain Name, the Complainant submits, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
The Complainant states that the Domain Name was registered by the Respondent in 2007 after the Complainant did not renew the Domain Name and the registration lapsed. The Domain Name currently resolves to a holding page, the Complainant submits, but has in the past had content showing that the Domain Name was being offered for sale and displaying pay-per-click links related to the Complainant’s business. According to the Complainant, on March 3, 2015 a fraudulent email was sent from the Domain Name asking the recipients to wire funds to a bank account, threatening with court proceedings if the funds were not wired. Using the Domain Name to pass itself off as the Complainant, the Complainant states, the Respondent thereby sought to defraud the Complainant’s customers. In addition, the Complainant submits, the Respondent is using the Domain Name in order to “phish” for financial information. As none of these activities according to the Complainant constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, the Complainant maintains that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
The Complainant further points out that the Domain Name has been used as the return email address in correspondence sent to the Complainant’s customers and the Respondent has signed off with the name “Intrum Justitia” and used the name for him or herself. By such correspondence, the Complainant states, the Respondent is seeking to mislead the Complainant’s customers into sending money to a stated banking account which is not connected to the Complainant. The Complainant also points out that the Respondent hid his or her identity behind a domain privacy service which increased the difficulty for the Complainant of identifying the Respondent. In these circumstances, according to the Complainant, this does not reflect good faith. Furthermore, there is no evidence, the Complainant alleges, that there is any conceivable good faith use of the Domain Name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown that it has rights in the Trade Mark.
The Trade Mark consists of (and in case of the figurative mark incorporates) the name “Intrum Justitia”, which is incorporated in its entirety in the Domain Name. The addition of a hyphen between the words Intrum and Justitia does not change the overall impression. Furthermore, the gTLD “.com” is typically disregarded under the confusing similarity test, since it is a technical registration requirement (See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel views on selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 1.2).
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or, in any case, confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name or that it has acquired trade mark rights in the name “Intrum Justitia”. Under these circumstances, the fact that the Complainant did not renew the registration of the Domain Name in 2006 does not in itself make the subsequent registration thereof by the Respondent result in a right or legitimate interest. There should be additional circumstances, such as evidence that the Domain Name is being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the Trade Mark. Neither is the case here, as the evidence before the Panel shows that the Domain Name has been used to send an email, using the Domain Name as an email address and also displaying the Complainant’s logo, apparently in order to lead the recipients to believe that it was sent by or on behalf of the Complainant, enticing recipients to make payments and provide financial information to the Respondent, or another third party using the Domain Name.
Moreover, also taking into account the reputation of the Trade Mark and the name “Intrum Justitia”, the Panel cannot conceive of any fair use of the Domain Name which would not infringe on the Complainant’s rights in the Trade Mark.
In view of the above, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
In view of the reputation of the Trade Mark, it is highly unlikely that at the time of the registration the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s rights in the Trade Mark. In addition, the name “Intrum Justitia”, which is incorporated in its entirety in the Domain Name, is not a name that a person wishing to register a domain name would accidently think of.
On these grounds, the Panel assumes that at the time of registration of the Domain Name the Respondent was or should have been aware of the Trade Mark.
Furthermore, a simple trade mark register search prior to the registration of the Domain Name would have informed the Respondent of the existence of the Trade Mark (and many other trademarks of the Complainant incorporating the name “Intrum Justitia”).
Under these circumstances, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name has been registered in bad faith.
The fact that the Domain Name at this stage does not appear to resolve to an active web site does not necessarily imply it is not being used. As set out in WIPO Overview 2.0 (paragraph 3.2), the consensus view is that the apparent lack of so-called active use (e.g., to resolve to a website) of the domain name without any active attempt to sell or to contact the trade mark holder (passive holding), does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith (see Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003). The Panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the Respondent is using the Domain Name in bad faith.
In this case the Panel finds that the following circumstances together are found to be indicative of bad faith use of the Domain Name:
- the reputation of the Trade Mark and the likelihood that the Respondent was aware or should have been aware of the Complainant’s rights in the Trade Mark;
- the lack of a Response by the Respondent;
- the apparent fraudulent use of the Domain Name to obtain payments and financial information from (potential) customers of the Complainant by intentionally misleading them as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Domain Name.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the 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.
Wolter Wefers Bettink
Sole Panelist
Date: August 3, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy