The Complainant is Signum International S.à.r.l. Luxembourg of Luzern, Switzerland, represented by Crowell & Moring, LLP, Belgium.
The Respondent is Jean Claude Marcel, of Saint Etienne, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with 1&1 Internet AG (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 13, 2016. On June 13, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On June 17, 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 and that the language of the registration agreement is French. On June 20, 2016, the Complainant requested that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent sent informal communications in English on June 21, 2016.
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 in English and French and the proceedings commenced on June 23, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 13, 2016. The Response was filed in English with the Center on July 12, 2016.
The Center appointed Michael D. Cover as the sole panelist in this matter on July 22, 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 part of the EF Education First Group, an international education company associated with the Hult International Business School. The MBA program of Hult International Business School is ranked amongst the top 70 such programs worldwide according to The Economist and Bloomberg Business.
The Complainant is the proprietor of a number of registered trademarks in the United States of America (“United States”) and throughout the world as HULT (registered on January 26, 2010) and HULT INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL (registered on April 24, 2003) in Classes 16, 35 and 41 (the “HULT trademark”). The Complainant has used its trademark since 2003. The Complainant has a website at ““.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on January 17, 2016. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website advertising and selling domain names related to the field of education. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant states that the Complaint is based on its HULT trademarks, which it states are used in external communication and branding and has filed evidence supporting extensive use of its trademark as Annexes 4, 6 and 8 to the Complaint.
The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates its HULT trademark in its entirety. The Complainant further submits that the addition of generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”) should be disregarded when comparing similarities between a domain name and a trademark and cites various previous decisions of UDRP panels in support. The Complainant also submits that its HULT trademark is well-known.
The Complainant concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is identical with the Complainant’s trademark HULT (word) and that the first element of the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. No Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant notes that it is established case law that it is sufficient for the Complainant to make a prima facie case showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name to shift the burden of proof onto the Respondent. The Complainant cites various previous UDRP panel decisions in support, including Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, which the Complainant states, demonstrates, together with the other decisions cited in those decisions, that the burden of proof shifts to the Respondent in those circumstances.
The Complainant states that it has not authorized the Respondent to use its trademark HULT and submits that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant notes that the Respondent is not making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name and, quite to the contrary, is using the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to a website used to advertise and sell domain names related to the field of education. The Complainant submits that this use is clearly a commercial use of the Disputed Domain Name by taking advantage of the Complainant’s well-known trademark and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant notes that it must prove on the balance of probabilities that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It notes that the Policy, paragraph 4(b) provides a non-exhaustive list of factors which may demonstrate bad faith use and registration.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent must have known of the Complainant and its trademarks. It notes that the Disputed Domain Name merely adds the generic term “school” to the Complainant’s distinctive HULT trademark. The Complainant also notes that a simple trademark search would have revealed the Complainant’s trademark registrations, as would an Internet search.
The Complainant submits that such knowledge constitutes bad faith registration of the Disputed Domain Name.
As to the Disputed Domain Name being used in bad faith, the Complainant notes that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website where domain names are for sale, including the Disputed Domain Name itself. It also notes that the Disputed Domain Name prevents the Complainant from reflecting its trademark in a corresponding domain name.
The Complaint concludes that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant requests that the Panel decide that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent made some observations in informal emails to the Center after receipt of the Complaint and has also made some comments on the Complaint in its Response. In these communications and the Response, the Respondent stated that it operated a small school and “commercial e-boutique” that also sells and rents domain names. Additionally, the Respondent invited the Complainant to make a proposal regarding the sale of the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent further denies the existence of the trademark HULT or that the Complainant would own the HULT trademark. 6. Discussion and Findings
The Complainant must demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has established that it has rights in its trademark HULT (word). The Complainant has registered rights in its trademark and no doubt common law rights as well.
The Panel also accepts the Complainant’s submission that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademark HULT (word) and its trademark HULT INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL. “Hult” is the dominant part of the Disputed Domain Name and, as noted in the decisions cited by the Complainant, it is well established that the addition of a gTLD is not sufficient to avoid confusing similarity. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel accepts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. In particular, the Panel accepts that the Complainant has not authorized or licensed the Respondent to use its trademarks.
It is a reasonable inference that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark HULT when it registered the Disputed Domain Name in January 2016 and the Respondent would not be able to go through any of the gateways in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy with regard to demonstrating that it has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.
In fact, the use of the Disputed Domain Name as set out by the Complainant demonstrates that such use as has taken place has been of a fraudulent nature.
The Panel also accepts the Complainant’s submission that it has established a prima facie case and that the burden of proof, as a result, shifts to the Respondent and the Respondent has not discharged that burden. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel accepts the submissions of the Complainant on this aspect and finds that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Whilst the conduct that of the Respondent does not fall exactly within one of the subheadings of paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which are the gateways to demonstrate that a domain name has been registered and used in bad faith, the subheadings are a non-exhaustive list. However, the Panel finds that, especially given the choice of the descriptive gTLD “.school”, the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with the Complainant and its trademarks in mind and hence registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The Panel finds that the Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to a website selling domain names related to the field of education constitutes bad faith as the Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website, in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The Panel finds, on the balance of probabilities, that the conduct of the Respondent set out by the Complainant constitutes registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name 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.
Michael D. Cover
Sole Panelist
Date: July 28, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy