Complainant is Teleperformance SE of Paris, France, represented by Inlex IP Expertise, France.
Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama / Monday Blessing, Mywireless of Black Walnut, California, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 25, 2019. On January 28, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On January 28, 2019, 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 Complainant on February 1, 2019 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on February 1, 2019.
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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 8, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 28, 2019. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on March 4, 2019.
The Center appointed Peter Wild as the sole panelist in this matter on March 11, 2019. 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
Complainant has been established 1978 and is an internationally active provider of call centers and related services. It claims to operate around 98,000 workstations. The trademark TELEPERFORMANCE is registered in various jurisdictions, for example, International Trademark No. 507250 TELEPERFORMANCE, registered on September 4, 1986, and European Union Trade Mark No. 003460524 TELEPERFORMANCE, filed on October 29, 2003, and registered on September 26, 2005.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on January 24, 2019, and resolves to a pay-per-click (“PPC”) website. Complainant provides evidence that the Disputed Domain Name has been used in connection with a fraudulent email scheme. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
According to Complainant, its business name and trademark TELEPERFORMANCE are well known internationally and registered as a company name and trademark. The Disputed Domain Name reproduces Complainant’s trademark in its entirety and should be considered as confusingly similar to Complainant’s TELEPERFORMANCE trademark. According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. According to Complainant, Respondent created an email address (“[…]@”) which was used to pretend that the sender is Complainant’s CEO and in that way trying to extract internal, finance related information from its employees. Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant owns International trademark and European Union Trade Mark registrations for TELEPERFORMANCE. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s TELEPERFORMANCE mark in full, changing the mark only by adding the descriptive term “-corp”, which can be understood to describe Complainant’s corporate form, followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. Previous UDRP decisions have repeatedly found that the mere addition of the gTLD “.com”, and descriptive terms to a complainant’s mark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.
The Panel therefore comes to the conclusion that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to established prior trademark rights of Complainant and the first element of the Policy is met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has to establish a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. If Respondent fails to do so, Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP.
Respondent was recorded as “WhoisGuardProtected” and after the Center’s request for verification, it was identified as “Monday blessing, mywireless”. Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, has not used or made preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, and has not been authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted by Complainant to register and/or use the Disputed Domain Name.
Respondent, without Complainant’s authorization or consent, registered the Disputed Domain Name clearly after Complainant’s trademarks were filed and registered, and at a time when Complainant’s business and trademark were already well known. Respondent has never operated any bona fide or legitimate business under the Disputed Domain Name, and is not making a protected noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. It is using the Disputed Domain Name to create at least one email address, which was used for trying to extract information from Complainant’s employees by pretending that the sender is the CEO of Complainant. The Disputed Domain name points to an unrelated, generic holding page which probably also serves as a PPC page. Respondent presumably receives fees from Internet users of the Disputed Domain Name who click the advertising links, directing them to websites offering various goods and services.
Both such uses demonstrate neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy, paragraph 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy, paragraph 4(c)(iii).
Respondent did not file a formal Response with an explanation why it would have any rights or legitimate interests.
Based on the foregoing, it is the Panel’s conclusion that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name within the meaning of Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii) and the second element of the Policy is met. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
It was clearly after Complainant established its rights in its trademark, and after Complainant’s activities made the trademark known, that Respondent acquired and began using the Disputed Domain Name to create the email address “[...]@”, which was used to pretend that the sender is Complainant’s CEO and in that way trying to extract internal, finance related information from Complainant’s employees. This shows that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant, its business and its trademark, as the Complainant’s CEO’s name was used and emails were sent to employees of Complainant.
The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent knew Complainant’s trademark at the time of registering the Disputed Domain Name and registered it to use for fraudulent purposes and commercial gain. This establishes the registration of the Disputed Domain name in bad faith.
Respondent is intentionally attempting to act as the Complainant’s CEO to lure Complainant’s employees to reveal internal and financial information. This Panel can not recognize any other possible purpose of such emails than trying to use such information, if and when it is revealed by Complainant’s employees, for fraudulently obtaining access to bank account numbers or similar information for commercial gain or other purposes detrimental to Complainant.
Respondent was aware of Complainant’s known TELEPERFORMANCE mark, as evidenced by Respondent’s use of the mark in the Disputed Domain Name and the use of Complainant CEO’s name.
For all of the reasons above, the Panel holds that Respondent’s conduct constitutes bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv), and that the third element of the Policy is met. 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 Complainant.
Peter Wild
Sole Panelist
Date: March 19, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy