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 Fabrice Laurent of Belfort, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Ascio Technologies Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 6, 2017. On July 7, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 7, 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 14, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 3, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 4, 2017.
The Center appointed Marie-Emmanuelle Haas as the sole panelist in this matter on August 9, 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 French multinational group specializing in nuclear power and renewable energy. It is listed on the European stock exchange Euronext Paris.
In 2015, Compalinant’s revenue was 4.2 billion with a consolidated net income of EUR 2.038 billion. It employs 40,000 people around the world and has operations in 41 countries.
The Complainant is the registered owner of AREVA trademarks:
- French trademark AREVA No 3104604
- French word and device trademark AREVA No 3116437
- French word and device trademark AREVA No 3591412
- European Union trade mark AREVA No 002478840
- International trademark AREVA No 783282
- International word and device trademark AREVA No 787894
- International trademark AREVA No 839880
The Complainant is also the registrant of the domain names and .
The disputed domain name was registered on May 24, 2017 and resolved to a website copying the official Complainant’s website. It was first registered using a privacy service, before the name of the registrant was disclosed.
Since the Complainant was able to have this webpage taken down by other means, the disputed domain name did not resolve any more to any website or webpage.
The Respondent did contact the Complainants’ suppliers attempting to pass themselves off the Complainant. It even did send a purchase order using the Complainant’s logo and asking for a credit line. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The disputed domain name integrates the AREVA trademark. The addition of the term “mines” increases the likelihood of confusion since mining is one of the Complainant’s core businesses.
Furthermore, it’s almost identical to the domain name registered in the name of the Complainant.
The Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant in any way.
The Complainant has not given any authorization to use the AREVA trademark.
The disputed domain name has been created to resolve to a webpage that was the exact replica of the Complainant’s website.
The Respondent did contact the Complainant’s suppliers attempting to pass themselves off the Complainant. It even did send a purchase order using the Complainant’s logo and asking for a credit line.
Therefore, the Respondent has no right or legitimate interests on the disputed domain name.
The Respondent is domiciled in France where the Complainant is incorporated. The AREVA trademark is known internationally.
Therefore the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s trademark rights and registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a webpage that was a replica of the Complainant’s website and to try to send emails trying to place orders in the name of the Complainant proves that Respondent ‘s goal was to mislead third parties and to capitalize on the fame and goodwill of the Complainant’s AREVA trademarks.
Given this situation, the fact that there is currently no active website has no impact on the bad faith use assessment. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
To prevail in the proceedings under the Policy, the Complainant must show that the three requirements set forth in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are met. Those requirements are:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Likewise, the Respondent can demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by demonstrating, among others, the circumstances mentioned under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. A. Identity or confusing similarity
The Complainant has clearly established its registered rights in the AREVA trademark.
The disputed domain name is composed of the AREVA trademark to which the terms “mines” is added.
The addition of the term “mines” does not avoid any likelihood of confusion, since “mining” is the one of the Complainant’s core businesses.
The disputed domain name copies the domain name registered since 2013 in the name of the Complainant, only adding a hyphen between the AREVA trademark and the descriptive term “mines”.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s AREVA trademark. The condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
As set forth by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, its use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The Respondent responded neither to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letters nor to the Complaint. Consequently, it did not provide any evidence or circumstances to establish that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, according to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.
The Complainant has not been licensed or authorized to use the AREVA well-known trademark or to register the disputed domain name.
The Respondent did not make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial use of the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out examples of circumstances that will be considered by the Panel to be evidence of bad faith registration and use of a domain name. It provides that:
“For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.”
The well-known character of the AREVA trademark excludes any possibility that the Respondent was not aware of the AREVA trademark when it registered the disputed domain name.
Using the disputed domain name to resolve to a website which is a replica of the Complainant’s website is a very clear evidence of bad faith use.
When it did resolve to this webpage the disputed domain name was registered using a privacy service to hide the registrant’s identity, which is additional evidence of bad faith.
Even if the disputed domain name does not resolve any more to an active website, it’s being used to mislead third parties and place orders pretending to act in the name of the Complainant, even asking for a line of credit. The Panel considers this to be bad faith use.
The Panel finds that by using the domain name, the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a product or service on its web site or location”, in the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Therefore, the condition set out by paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant. 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.
Marie-Emmanuelle Haas
Sole Panelist
Date: August 23, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy