The Complainant is AGFA-Gevaert N.V. of Mortsel, Belgium, represented by Novagraaf Belgium NV/SA, Belgium.
The Respondent is Jiang Ye of Minnesota, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with R (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 30, 2017. On June 30, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 30, 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 July 7, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 27, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 28, 2017.
The Center appointed Dr. Hong Xue as the sole panelist in this matter on August 2, 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, an imaging and IT company, registered with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) the word mark AGFA (reg. no. 003353463) on January 24, 2005.
The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on March 31, 2017. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark AGFA.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name .
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), a complainant must prove that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. In line with such requirement, a complainant must prove its trademark or service mark rights and the identity/similarity between the disputed domain name and its trademark or service mark.
The Panel notes that, long before the registration of the disputed domain name , the Complainant had registered the word mark AGFA in the European Union and was granted the exclusive right over the mark AGFA on the designated goods and services.
The disputed domain name is . Apart from the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.com”, the disputed domain name consists of “aagfa”, which, except for the additional letter “a” at the beginning, is identical with the Complainant’s registered mark AGFA. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name which incorporates the Complainant’s mark AGFA in its entirety and which merely duplicates the letter “a” in front of “agfa” is not substantively distinguishable from the Complainant’s mark.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name , as a whole, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark AGFA. Accordingly, the Complainant has proven paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant asserts, and provides evidence to demonstrate, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and, as stated above, the Respondent did not provide any information to the Panel asserting any rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain name .
It is apparent from the Complaint that there is no connection between the Respondent and the Complainant or its business. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists a number of circumstances which can demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. However, there is no evidence before the Panel that any of the situations described in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy apply here. To the contrary, the lack of any Response leads the Panel to draw a negative inference.
Therefore, and also in light of the Panel’s findings below, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name . Accordingly, the Complainant has proven paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Respondent did not respond to these contentions.
According to the evidence provided by the Complainant, the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, “www.”, presents links to a large number of suspected pirate movies, TV series, cartoons and other videos. Since the Complainant has registered and been using the mark AGFA in relation to apparatus for archiving digital images for use in cinematographic environment and technical services for cinematographic art, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark AGFA for provision of online video services is sufficient to prove that the Respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the disputed domain name’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name’s website or of the video services offered on that website.
The Panel therefore finds that this is adequate to conclude that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv). Therefore, the Complainant has successfully proven 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.
Dr. Hong Xue
Sole Panelist
Date: August 10, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy