The Complainant is Aviva Brands Limited of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Domain Admin Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyP) of Burlington, Massachusetts, United States of America (“United States”) / Alexandre Roger, Alexandre Roger Gilbert Deremetz of Cotonou, Benin. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hostinger, UAB (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 16, 2018. On October 16, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 17, 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 October 19, 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 amended Complaint on October 23, 2018.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 October 24, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 13, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 14, 2018.
The Center appointed Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira as the sole panelist in this matter on November 23, 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. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a British multinational insurance company headquartered in London, United Kingdom. The Complainant operates in several countries and can trace its history back 320 years to 1696 with the establishment of Hand in Hand Fire & Life Insurance Society, London.
The Complainant has officially been known as “Aviva” since 2002. Aviva Brand Plc is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Aviva Group.
The Complainant renders insurance and related services under the mark AVIVA worldwide. The Complainant and its subsidiaries have been advertising their services under the AVIVA mark in all kinds of medias, including promoting its services on the Internet for several years.
The Complainant owns several registrations and applications for the AVIVA mark, as well as for domain names incorporating “aviva”, covering a wide range of financial and related services. These registrations include, for example, international trademark no. 781157, registered February 11, 2002. Proofs of these registrations were duly produced in the Complaint.
Prior to Complaint filing, the disputed domain name resolved to a website offering competing services to those of the Complainant and featured the AVIVA trademark on its homepage. The disputed domain name does not currently point to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks registered and used worldwide. In fact, the only distinctive word integrating the disputed domain name is “aviva”, which is identical to the Complainant’s registered mark.
Besides, the word chosen by the Respondent to compose the disputed domain name together with “aviva” is “banque”, a French word meaning “bank”. This descriptive term does not negate the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark.
The Complainant informs that prior to the presentation of this Complaint, the Complainant attempted to contact the Respondent to seek a settlement on the dispute, but the Complainant’s letters were not answered.
The domain name adopted by the Respondent– a reproduction of the registered mark associated with a descriptive word – shows a clear intention of misleading the Internet users to its website. The Complainant underlines that the disputed domain name gives the impression that it is in some way associated with it. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
The Policy, in its paragraph 4(a), determines that three elements must be present and duly proven by a complainant to obtain relief. These elements are:
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 to 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
Regarding the first of the elements, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has presented adequate proof of having rights in the mark AVIVA, registered throughout the world. In addition, the Complainant has been providing a full range of insurance and related services worldwide for hundreds of years, and under the AVIVA mark for at least 15 years.
Further, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is indeed confusingly similar to the trademark belonging to the Complainant, since this mark is entirely reproduced in the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent with the addition of a descriptive term.
Hence, the Panel concludes that the first of the elements in the Policy has been satisfied by the Complainant in this dispute. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel understands that the mark AVIVA is naturally associated with the Complainant, since it is not only registered as a mark in its name, but also has been used to identify the services rendered by the Complainant for years.
Further, the Complainant provided sufficient evidence of the fame of the mark AVIVA and the full range of insurance services rendered under this name to its clients all over the world. Hence, the Panel considers that the Respondent, in all likelihood, could not be unaware of the mark AVIVA, and its direct relation to the Complainant.
In fact, the Complainant presented evidence that the disputed domain name led to a page offering services similar to the Complainant’s, and was organized as though belonging to or at least linked to the Complainant.
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has made a prima facie showing of the Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. This has not been rebutted by the Respondent.
Thus, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. For this reason, the Panel believes that the Complainant has satisfied the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
It is clear to the Panel that the Respondent has in all probability registered the disputed domain name with the purpose of taking advantage of the Complainant’s mark.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was likely registered to mislead consumers – hence the addition of the expression “banque”. Further, the additional expression can surely be considered an allusion to the Complainant’s core business, a fact from which the Respondent may well profit by giving Internet users the impression that the disputed domain name belongs to the Complainant. The Respondent intended to give an overall impression that the disputed domain name is associated with the Complainant, and the Panel accepts that the disputed domain name may be intended for illegitimate purposes.
All the points above lead to the conclusion by this Panel that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant when registering the disputed domain name and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has also proved the third element 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.
Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira
Sole Panelist
Date: December 4, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy