The Complainant is Banque Pictet & Cie SA of Carouge, Switzerland, represented by B.M.G. Avocats, Switzerland.
The Respondent is PrivacyDotLink Customer of Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom / Cameron Jackson of Norfolk Island, New South Wales, Australia. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and are registered with Uniregistrar Corp (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 13, 2017. On February 13, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On February 16, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 17, 2017 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 amended Complaint on February 22, 2017.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 February 24, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 16, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 17, 2017.
The Center appointed Adam Samuel as the sole panelist in this matter on March 28, 2017. 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 a private bank. It owns a Swiss trademark for PICTET (referred to hereafter as the “Complainant’s trademark”), registration no. P-478932 registered on November 24, 2000.
The disputed domain names were registered on December 14 and 15, 2016 and January 8, 2017. The Complainant promotes its business through its domain name, , registered on February 8, 1996. The website to which the disputed domain names resolve has always been inactive. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
All the disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s trademark PICTET. This trademark is highly recognizable in the disputed domain names as it is the only element in the disputed domain name or it is added to generic words denoting activities or the corporate status or nature of the bank, various geographic locations, 1805, the year of the Complainant’s creation, and other words which do not add elements that remove the confusion between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain names.
The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the disputed domain names. These do not correspond to the Respondent’s name. The Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with any website.
The Respondent has registered the disputed domain names long after the Complainant started using and registered its PICTET trademark in various regions of the world. That trademark is not a dictionary word and has no particular meaning.
The Complainant’s representative asked the Respondent for the transfer of the domain name in 2016. As the parties were negotiating a price, the Respondent kept buying new domain names containing the Complainant’s trademark PICTET and telling the Complainant to raise the price of the transfer. By now, the Respondent was fully aware of who the Complainant was and still kept buying domain names containing the Complainant’s trademark. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Under the Policy, the Complainant must prove, as regards each dispute domain name, that:
(i) the domain name concerned is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which it has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name concerned; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Each of the disputed domain names uses the Complainant’s trademark and business name, PICTET combined with other words. Some add the words “bank” or “banque” denoting the Complainant’s principal activity. Others add words referring to the Complainant’s activities, geographic locations, indicators of a corporate status, fan pages and in one case the simple letter “f”. “Pictet” is a word with no dictionary meaning. The addition of generic words or a random letter “f” to a word with no meaning, except as the Complainant’s trademark, which fails to transform the domain name into a term with a different meaning, results in each disputed domain name being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not called “Pictet” or anything similar and has never used the disputed domain names. There is no evidence that the Complainant has ever authorized the Respondent to use the trademark PICTET. For these reasons, and in the absence of any response on this point, notably one contradicting the Complainant’s claim that the Respondent has never been connected to it in any way, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
On November 2, 2016, the Complainant’s representative wrote to the Respondent in relation to the domain name , making clear the Complainant’s identity and trademark rights in relation to the name PICTET. On November 3, 2016, the Respondent replied, offering to transfer the domain name concerned for a fee. The details of the negotiation are unimportant. What is relevant is that, having learnt of the Complainant’s identity and trademark rights and desire to protect those rights, the Respondent registered the fifty-five dispute domain names in this case, all containing the Complainant’s name.
This and the subsequent retention of the disputed domain names are clear evidence of bad faith registration and use. 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 names , , ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and be transferred to the Complainant.
Adam Samuel
Sole Panelist
Date: April 5, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy