The Complainant is Bureau Veritas of Neuilly-sur-Seine, France, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is Xavier Garreau of Nantes, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Realtime Register B.V. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on August 11, 2017. On August 11, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 14, 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 August 18, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 7, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on September 8, 2017.
The Center appointed Nathalie Dreyfus as the sole panelist in this matter on September 19, 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 Bureau Veritas, a French company founded in 1828, specialized in testing, inspection and certification. The Complainant inter alia owns the following trademarks, registered in several jurisdictions and based on French registrations:
- International Trademark BUREAU VERITAS 1828 + device No. 1074420, registered since March 21, 2011;
- International Trademark BUREAU VERITAS No. 1289458, registered since December 23, 2015;
- International Trademark BUREAU VERITAS 1828 + device No. 1291135, registered since December 23, 2015;
- International Trademark BUREAU VERITAS No. 311819, registered since April 12, 1966 and duly renewed;
- International Trademark BUREAU VERITAS No. 763643, registered since March 29, 2001 and duly renewed.
The disputed domain name, , was registered on July 19, 2016 and resolves to the Complainant's official website "". 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
Firstly, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks that it owns, in that sense that the only difference is that the "i" letter of the name "veritas" is misplaced in the disputed domain name. In this respect, the Complainant insists on the fact that the misspelling of a trademark does not allow to avoid the likelihood of confusion, nor does the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) ".com". The Complainant also states that the Respondent was obviously aware of its rights in the name BUREAU VERITAS, since the disputed domain name resolves to the Complainant's official website ("").
Secondly, the Complainant raises several observations in order to make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name. The Complainant argues that it is not affiliated to the Respondent and that the latter was never authorized to use the Complainant's trademark. Furthermore, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Indeed, the WhoIs information indicates the Respondent's name to be Xavier Garreau and not "Bureau Veritas". Finally, the disputed domain name resolves, without authorization, to the Complainant's official website, which does not constitute rights in respect to the disputed domain name.
Thirdly, regarding the bad faith criteria, the Complainant considers that the misspelling of the trademark in the disputed domain name reveals a registration in bad faith. Knowledge of the Complainant's rights is further highlighted by the fact that the disputed domain name resolves to the Complainant's official website without authorization. This late argument is also used by the Complainant to try to demonstrate use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant deems that the Respondent is voluntarily creating a risk of confusion by suggesting that he is linked to the Complainant and therefore would benefit from his audience's trust to – possibly – later redirect them to other websites. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions and is therefore in default. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name, the Complainant shall prove the following three elements:
(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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns valid trademark rights on the sign BUREAU VERITAS, resulting from both verbal and semi-figurative trademarks (see Section 4.).
The disputed domain name incorporates the BUREAU VERITAS trademark in a virtually identical manner, since the only difference between the trademark and the disputed domain name resides in the fact that the letter "i"of the denomination "veritas" is misplaced in the disputed domain.
The construction of the disputed domain name therefore corresponds to typosquatting, i.e., the disputed domain name reproduces the prior trademark but with a mistake in it. When confronted with typosquatting, panels usually consider that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant's trademark (see e.g., Christian Dior Couture v. Mumbai Domains,WIPO Case No. D2010-2274).
Additionally, it is well established that the gTLD (".com" in the present case) may be disregarded to assert whether or not a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant's trademark (see e.g., Diamonique Corporation v. Foley Services,WIPO Case No. D2007-0893).
In view of the above, the Panel considers the Complainant to have sufficiently proven that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Prior UDRP panels have stated that it is sufficient for a complainant to show a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name in order to shift the burden of production to the respondent (see e.g., Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. Zabor Mok,WIPO Case No. D2015-1432).
Here, the Complainant has shown that the Respondent does not benefit from an authorization granted by the Complainant to use its trademarks. Moreover, there is no business relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent.
The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Indeed, the information on the Respondent provided in the WhoIs demonstrates that he is known as "Xavier Garreau" and not "Bureau Vertais" nor "".
In this regard, the Registrar has raised doubts regarding the identity of the Respondent, stating that it might be false, since the address of the registrant appears to correspond to one of the Complainant's offices. This statement cannot be taken for a fact, since no investigation was conducted to confirm this doubt but the Panel believes it is still worth mentioning. Furthermore, the Respondent has not filed a response to the Complainant's contentions in an effort to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Finally, the disputed domain name redirects to the Complainant's official website, without authorization, which is likely to mislead Internet users into believing that the disputed domain name is connected to the Complainant's business. In the Panel's opinion, this does not claim for a use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
In view of all the above elements, the Panel notes that the Respondent has not provided evidence of the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. Consequently, the Panel considers that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must also show that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that are evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.
It seems obvious that the Respondent had the Complainant's trademarks in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Indeed, the registration of the Complainant's trademark predates the registration of the disputed domain name (see Section 4.)
Besides, the disputed domain name is constructed around a misspelling of the Complainant's trademark, which reveals a case of typosquatting. Further, the disputed domain name resolves to the Complainant's official website "", which confirms that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's rights in the sign BUREAU VERITAS.
The Panel is therefore of the opinion that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to mislead Internet users looking for the Complainant's services (see, e.g., Zions Bancorporation v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services,WIPO Case No. D2014-1797).
Regarding the criterion of use in bad faith, the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name resolves to its own website, without authorization, which cannot amount to a use of the disputed domain name in good faith. In this respect, the Complainant mentions a pertinent decision, in a case where Internet users could, in some cases, be redirected to the complainant's website. In this decision, the panel has held that: "such redirection will allow the Respondent to divert future users to competing web sites after having built up mistaken confidence in the source of the content is a reasonable one" (see Altavista Company v. Brunosousa, aka Bruno Sousa,WIPO Case No. D2002-0109).
Overall, the Respondent has not tried to defend his registration and use of the disputed domain name, which is a further indicator that it has not acted in good faith.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using 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.
Nathalie Dreyfus
Sole Panelist
Date: September 27, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy