The Complainant is AREVA Société Anonyme à Directoire et Conseil de Surveillance of Courbevoie, France, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is wangyongqiang of Jiang Men Xin Hui, Guangdong, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name ("Disputed Domain Name") is registered with AlpNames Limited (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on June 1, 2016. On June 2, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On June 3, 2016, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 17, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 7, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on July 8, 2016.
The Center appointed Kar Liang Soh as the sole panelist in this matter on July 18, 2016. 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 based in France and specializes in nuclear power and renewable energy. It is listed on the European stock exchange Euronext Paris. As of the date of the Complaint, the Complainant employs about 44,000 people in commercial and industrial operations in 41 countries. Its Asia-Pacific operations accounted for 22% of its revenue of about EUR 8.336 billion in 2015. The Complainant has maintained a presence in China since the mid-1980's and has participated in 6 of the 11 nuclear power plants currently in operation in China. 20 of 24 reactors under construction use the Complainant's technology. It now has about 850 employees in China covering Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Sichuan and Guangdong.
The Complainant owns many trademark registrations comprising the word "Areva", which is its name, in many jurisdictions, including:
Jurisdiction
Trademark No.
Registration Date
International
783282
November 11, 2001
International
787894
February 5, 2002
International
839880
July 16, 2004
EUTM
002478840
October 29, 2004
EUTM
003871084
September 27, 2005
China
6993151
August 14, 2010
International registration 783282 and 839880 designate China. The Complainant started use of the trademark AREVA in 2001 and has received considerable press coverage in China. Prior UDRP panels have held that the trademark AREVA is well known (e.g., AREVA v. Wang Songxu,WIPO Case No. D2012-2422).
The Complainant also holds several domain name registrations including and under which it operates websites.
Information about the Respondent is limited to the WhoIs information of the Disputed Domain Name and details provided in the Complaint. The Respondent appears to be an individual by the name of "wangyongqiang" from Guangdong, China.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on January 19, 2016. Before the date of the Complaint, the Disputed Domain Name resolved to a website serving adult content and which did not appear to feature the trademark AREVA. At the time of the Complainant, the Disputed Domain Name did not resolve to any website. The Complainant attempted to contact the Respondent to resolve the dispute outside of this proceeding but has been ignored. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
(a) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The trademark registrations for AREVA is sufficient to confer rights on the Complainant. Only the second level domain is relevant for comparison with the Complainant's trademark. The Disputed Domain Name encompasses the Complainant's trademark in its entirety and is thus identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark;
(b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant in any way. The Complainant has not given the Respondent permission to use the Complainant's trademarks in any manner, including in domain names. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. The use of a domain name which is confusingly similar to a trademark to feature pornographic or adult content evidenced a lack of rights or legitimate interests; and
(c) The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent knew, or should have known, of the existence of the Complainant's trademarks and domain names. A cursory Internet search would have disclosed the trademark AREVA and its extensive use by the Complainant. The Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to direct unsuspecting Internet users to adult content. The website resolved from the Disputed Domain Name featured sexually‑explicit pornographic content. Use of a confusingly similar domain name to direct unsuspecting Internet users to adult content is evidence of bad faith registration and use. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to establish the following in this proceeding:
(a) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights;
(b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and
(c) The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown by the evidence of various trademark registrations that it has rights in the trademark AREVA. It is obvious that the Disputed Domain Name adopts the trademark AREVA in its entirety. There are no prefixes, suffixes or spelling variances to consider. It is the consensus opinion of prior panels established under the Policy that the Top-Level Domain, in this case ".link", is generally not taken into account when comparing a domain name and a trademark in the context of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. In the circumstances, the Panel holds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the trademark AREVA and the first limb of paragraph 4(a) is established on the facts. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the Respondent is known by any name other than "wangyongqiang". More specifically, there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent is known by the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant asserted that it has neither sponsored nor is affiliated with the Respondent. The Complainant has also asserted that it has not permitted the Respondent to use the trademark AREVA. The Panel does not find the Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name to host an adult-content website to be bona fide, legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Various prior UDRP panels have reached a similar conclusion when reviewing a domain name incorporating a trademark having no connection with a respondent which directs to an adult-content website (e.g., MatchNet plc v. MAC Trading,WIPO Case No. D2000-0205). The Complainant has accordingly established a prima facie case for the second limb of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. In the absence of a Response, the prima facie case is upheld. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant has made very strong allegations against the Respondent which any reasonable person in the Respondent's shoes would respond to. The failure of the Respondent to reply to these allegations leads the Panel to draw an adverse inference that the Respondent admits to the allegations, in particular, that
(a) The Respondent is aware of the Complainant and the trademark AREVA when registering the Disputed Domain Name;
(b) The Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to direct unsuspecting Internet users to adult content; and
(c) The Respondent has ignored the Complainant's attempts to resolve this dispute outside of this proceeding.
It is the consensus opinion of prior UDRP panels that the intentional tarnishment of a complainant's trademark by conduct such as linking pornographic images or wholly inappropriate information to an unrelated trademark constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use of the domain name (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition). The Panel cannot even begin to imagine how the Complainant's nuclear power plants could be related to adult-content. The Complainant is clearly not in the adult industry. The intentional featuring of adult content on the website resolved from the Disputed Domain Name has a real risk of tarnishing the trademark AREVA. The Panel is guided by the consensus and holds that the circumstances evidence bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name. Therefore, the Panel holds that the third limb of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is also made out.
The fact that the Disputed Domain Name did not resolve to a website at the time of the Complaint per se does not assist the Respondent as the circumstances are already tainted by the bad faith associated with the linking to adult content. On the other hand, the Respondent's taking down of the website after having been in contact with the Complainant suggests that the Respondent is well aware of the earlier inappropriate use of the Disputed Domain Name. 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.
Kar Liang Soh
Sole Panelist
Date: August 10, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy