The Complainant is Renault S.A.S. de Boulogne-Billancourt, France, represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Domain Administrator, See PrivacyG of Phoenix, Arizona, United States of America (“United States”) / Domain Admin / This Domain is For Sale, Home of Domains of Phoenix, Arizona, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 19, 2018. On February 20, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 20, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 27, 2018 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 amendment to the Complaint on February 28, 2018.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 March 1, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 21, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 23, 2018.
The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on April 6, 2018. 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.
Having reviewed the communication records in the case file provided by the Center, the Panel finds that the Center has discharged its responsibility under the Rules, paragraph 2(a), “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent”. Therefore, the Panel shall issue its Decision based upon the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules and without the benefit of a Response from the Respondent.
The language of the proceeding is English, being the language of the Registration Agreement, as per paragraph 11(a) of the Rules. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is Renault S.A.S., belonging to the Renault Group, operating as a leader in the automotive field since 1898 all around the world and owning many trademark registrations and applications for RENAULT, including:
- United States Trademark Registration No. 3072692 RENAULT, registered on March 28, 2006;
- European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 010684462 RENAULT, registered on August 9, 2012;
The Complainant also applied for European Union Trade Mark No. 017361809 RENAULT EASY CONNECT, filed on October 19, 2017.
With the pending European Union Trade Mark Application RENAULT EASY CONNECT the Complainant is delivering a range of next-generation mobility and connected vehicles services aimed to make the driving experience safer, more fun and more efficient.
The Complainant provided evidence in support of the above.
The disputed domain name was registered on October 19, 2017. At the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page where the disputed domain name was offered for sale.
The Complainant sent a warning letter to the Respondent on December 19, 2017, with a reminder sent on January 2, 2018: the Respondent never replied. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark RENAULT.
Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since it has not been authorized by the Complainant to use it, it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor is the Respondent making neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, since the Complainant’s trademark RENAULT is distinctive and wellknown all around the world. In addition, it states that the disputed domain name was registered the same day as the Complainant’s trademark application for RENAULT EASY CONNECT was published. Therefore, the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and the Complainant cannot see a use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent that would not amount to bad faith. Rather, the Respondent is simply holding the disputed domain name in order to sell it, which the Complainant says evidences the Respondent’s bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions and is in default. In reference to paragraphs 5(e) and 14 of the Rules, no exceptional circumstances explaining the default have been put forward or are apparent from the record.
A respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding under the Policy, but if it fails to do so, reasonable facts asserted by a complainant may be taken as true, and appropriate inferences, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, may be drawn (see, e.g., Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0441; Microsoft Corporation v. Freak Films Oy,WIPO Case No. D2003-0109; SSL International PLC v. Mark Freeman,WIPO Case No. D2000-1080; Altavista Company v. Grandtotal Finances Limited et. al.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0848; Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, Caisse Fédérale du Crédit Mutuel Nord Europe v. Marketing Total S.A.,WIPO Case No. D2007-0288). 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(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 Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark RENAULT, both by registration and by acquired reputation and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark RENAULT, since the addition of the words “easy” and “connect” is not sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark.
It is also well accepted that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix, in this case “.com”, may be ignored when assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name (see, e.g., VAT Holding AG v. V,WIPO Case No. D2000-0607). The Panel finds that the Complainant has therefore met its burden of proving that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has failed to file a response in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5.
The Complainant in its Complaint and as set out above has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It asserts that the Respondent, who is not associated with the Complainant in any way, is not using the disputed domain name for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use or in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, the disputed domain name has simply been parked and offered for sale for USD 950.
The prima facie case presented by the Complainant is enough to shift the burden of production to the Respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not presented any evidence of any rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain name, and the Panel is unable to establish any such rights or legitimate interests on the basis of the evidence in front of it.
The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that “for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, 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 [the respondent has] registered or has 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 the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) that [the respondent has] 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 [the respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) that [the respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) that by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] 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 [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location.”
Regarding the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name, the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark RENAULT in the automotive field is clearly established and the Panel finds that the Respondent likely knew of the Complainant and deliberately registered the disputed domain name because it is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, especially considering that the disputed domain name, in which the words “easy” and “connect” are added to the Complainant’s trademark RENAULT, was registered the same day that the European Union Trade Mark Application RENAULT EASY CONNECT was filed by the Complainant.
Regarding the use in bad faith of the disputed domain name, the Panel considers that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a parked page, where the disputed domain name was offered for sale for USD 950, falls squarely within the language of paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, cited above. In the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that such activity amounts to bad faith use.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has presented sufficient evidence to satisfy its burden of proof with respect to the issue of whether the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied. 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.
Edoardo Fano
Sole Panelist
Date: April 16, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy