The Complainant is Natixis of Paris, France, represented by Inlex IP Expertise, France.
The Respondent is Zhang Ming of Hong Kong, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on June 8, 2017. On June 9, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 11, 2017, 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 15, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 5, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on July 6, 2017.
The Center appointed Jonathan Agmon as the sole panelist in this matter on July 12, 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, Natixis, is a French corporate and financial services company. The Complainant has registered its name Natixis on 1954, the Complainant gained reputation in its name in connection with banking and financial services.
The Complainant has more than 15,000 employees in 38 countries.
The Complainant owns several trademark registrations for the mark NATIXIS. For example, European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 005129176, registered on June 21, 2007; International trademark registration no. 1071008, registered on April 21, 2010; International trademark registration no. 936101, registered on April 12, 2007; and more.
The Complainant also holds domain names incorporating Natixis. For example: and .
The disputed domain name was registered on January 13, 2017.
Currently, the disputed domain name directs to a Chinese gambling website. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is both visually and phonetically similar to the NATIXIS trademarks and therefore is confusingly similar to the Complainant's NATIXIS trademarks. The Complainant contends that the only difference is the change of the letter "t" to the letter "l".
The Complainant argues that the change of the letter is a typosquatting case, and that the Respondent deliberately introduced this slight deviation into the Complainant's famous trademark NATIXIS.
The Complainant further argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant further contends that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the mark NATIXIS.
The Complainant further argues the disputed domain name is linked to an online gambling website.
The Complainant further argues that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant further argues that it is unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant at the time it registered the disputed domain name.
The Complainant further argues that the Respondent had been involved in two other UDRP cases, and therefore it is obvious that also in this case it registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.
For all of the above reasons, the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certificate belong to its respective owner. The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registration for the mark NATIXIS. For example: European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 005129176, registered on June 21, 2007; International trademark registration no. 1071008, registered on April 21, 2010; International trademark registration no. 936101, registered on April 12, 2007; and more.
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's NATIXIS trademark with the change of the letter "t" with the letter "l" and the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com".
The Panel finds that the replacement of the letter "t" with "l", which comprises of a substitution of similar-appearing characters, is considered in certain circumstances as an obvious misspelling of a trademark. See for example Sanofi v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / domain admin,WIPO Case No. D2013-0368 where an "o" was replaced by an "i" in the domain name, and LinkedIn Corporation v. Daphne Reynolds,WIPO Case No. D2015-1679 where the capital letter "i" was replaced with the letter "l" in the domain name. These and other cases have established that such typos or replacements in trademarks are considered as a common, obvious or intentional misspelling of a trademark. The Panel accepts the Complainant argument in this matter, and finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
Also, the addition of the gTLD suffix ".com" does not have the capacity to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's NATIXIS registered trademark and is disregarded when comparing the disputed domain name with the Complainant's trademark. See Volkswagen AG v. Todd Garber,WIPO Case No. D2015-2175; Dassault (Groupe Industriel Marcel Dassault) v. Ma Xiaojuan,WIPO Case No. D2015-1733; Lego Juris A/S v. Chen Yong,WIPO Case No. D2009-1611; Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. zhanglei,WIPO Case No. D2014-0080.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the NATIXIS trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Once the Complainant establishes a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 2.1.
In the present case, the Complainant has demonstrated prima facie that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and the Respondent has failed to assert any such rights or legitimate interests.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case in this regard, inter alia, due to the fact that the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant's trademarks or a variation thereof and the evidence presented indicates that the Respondent is not engaged in a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Respondent has not submitted any Response to the Complaint and did not provide any explanation or evidence to show any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name sufficient to rebut the Complainant's prima facie case.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant must show that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii)). Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides circumstances that may evidence bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
The Complainant has submitted evidence, which shows that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name long after the Complainant registered its trademark. According to the evidence filed by the Complainant, the Complainant has owned a registration for the NATIXIS trademark since at least the year 2007. It is suggestive of the Respondent's bad faith in these particular circumstances that the trademark, owned by the Complainant, was registered long before the registration of the disputed domain name (Sanofi-Aventis v. Abigail Wallace,WIPO Case No. D2009-0735).
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. Previous UDRP panels have found that "[a] likelihood of confusion is presumed, and such confusion will inevitably result in the diversion of Internet traffic from the Complainant's site to the Respondent's site" (E, Inc. v. Triple E Holdings Limited,WIPO Case No. D2006-1095). To this end, prior UDRP panels have established that attracting Internet traffic by using a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark may be evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Moreover, the use of a domain name which comprises an obvious substitution of similar-appearing characters has been long considered as typosquatting and is regarded as a clear indication of bad faith registration and use of a disputed domain name. In this case, the Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain name where the substituted letters are very similar (the letter "l" was substituted with the letter "t") is a clear indication of bad faith registration and use. This is coupled with the Respondent use of the disputed domain name under as a gambling website, which may be considered mistakenly by Internet users as connected to the financial services offered by the Complainant. Furthermore, since the Respondent failed to answer the Complaint, there is no indication that the Respondent is known by name of the disputed domain name or why it chose to use the disputed domain name.
The Panel also took into consideration the Respondent's pattern of conduct. The Complainant provided evidence showing that the Respondent was involved in two UDRP cases (see Philipp Plein v. Zhang Ming,WIPO Case No. D2017-0626; and Philipp Plein v. zhang ming,WIPO Case No. D2017-0619), in both it was determined that the Respondent engaged in abusive domain name registration. Such behavior, involving two or more instances of abusive domain name registration is another clear evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name (see Home Interiors & Gifts, Inc. v. Home Interiors,WIPO Case No. D2000-0010, AMPO, S. COOP v. C, Taeho Kim, Philippine,WIPO Case No. D2009-0177)
Having regard to the evidence, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used by the Respondent with knowledge of the Complainant and in bad faith with the intent to create an impression of an association with the Complainant and profit therefrom. The Respondent's actions therefore constitute bad faith. See Herbalife International, Inc. v. Surinder S. Farmaha,WIPO Case No. D2005-0765, stating that "the registration of a domain name with the knowledge of the complainant's trademark registration amounts to bad faith".
Based on the evidence that was presented to the Panel, including the Complainant's registered trademark, the use of the Complainant's trademark in the disputed domain name, the practice of typosquatting, the pattern of abusive domain name registration and the Respondent's failure to answer the Complaint, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Accordingly, having regard to the circumstances of this particular case, the Panel finds that the Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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.
Jonathan Agmon
Sole Panelist
Date: July 25, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy