The Complainant is NATIXIS of Paris, France represented by Inlex IP Expertise, France.
The Respondent is Montez T, Cybortech of Mesa, Arizona, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 21, 2019. On February 21, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 22, 2019, 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 March 4, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 24, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 25, 2019.
The Center appointed Dr. Beatrice Onica Jarka as the sole panelist in this matter on March 29, 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
The Complainant is a French corporate providing financial services, as part of the BPCE Group.
The Complainant is the owner of several French, European Union and International trademark registrations for the term NATIXIS, among others:
- French Trademark registration NATIXIS no. 3416315, filed on March 14, 2006;
- European Union Trademark registration NATIXIS no. 5129176, registered on June 21, 2007;
- International Trademark registration NATIXIS no. 1071008, registered on April, 21, 2010.
The Complainant is also the holder of the following domain name registrations: , registered on February 3, 2005, and , registered on October 20, 2006, both resolving to the Complainant’s official website.
The Complainant widely uses the NATIXIS trademarks in connection with banking and financial services. The Complainant’s reputed services proposed under the trademarks NATIXIS are well known internationally, in particular in France and the European Union.
The Respondent appears to be an individual connected to the company Cryptotech, located in Arizona, United States, who registered the disputed domain name on February 4, 2019. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant asserts that:
- the disputed domain name is highly similar to the Complainant’s mark NATIXIS and represents a clear case of typosquatting. The disputed domain name and the Complainant’s mark NATIXIS are both composed of seven letters. Moreover they have 6 identical letters placed in the same order and at the same rank, which creates a high visual similarity: “natixis” “natlxis”. The only difference is the replacement of the middle letter “i” by an “l” which are very close on a visual standpoint. Moreover both terms having no dictionary meaning increases the likelihood of confusion between the Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain name.
- the Respondent has no rights, including trademark rights, in respect of the name “natlxis”, and there is no business or legal relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent.
- the disputed domain name is not being used and it is therefore obvious that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
- the disputed domain name is registered with the aim of taking advantage of the reputation of the well-known trademark NATIXIS of the Complainant.
- although the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website, the passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith, as the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name to take advantage of the reputation of the Complainant.
- in this sense, it should be noted that: the trademarks NATIXIS are well-known in France and in several other countries; the well-known character of the marks NATIXIS, owned by the Complainant, can be established by a simple search on the search engine “” for NATIXIS and gives about 4 million results.
- as NATIXIS enjoys a widespread reputation not only in France but also around the world, it seems unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s activities and of the existence of the trademarks and the Complainant’s domain names incorporating NATIXIS at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.
- the disputed domain name is used in bad faith, as the disputed domain name is not actively used so that there is no real and substantial offer of goods and/or services on the website associated with the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In order to establish the first element of the Policy, the Complainant should show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant holds rights.
Based on the assertions and evidence presented by Complainant, this Panel finds undisputable that the Complainant holds rights in the NATIXIS trademarks.
This Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark NATIXIS and represents a clear case of typosquatting in the sense of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.9. The Panel agrees with the Complainant that there is a high visual similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s mark NATIXIS as both are composed of seven letters and both have 6 identical letters placed in the same order and at the same rank: “Natixis“ compared to “Natlxis”. The only difference is the replacement of the middle letter “i" by an “l” which are very close from a visual standpoint, representing a classic example of typosquatting – the registration of domain names with different letters that appear similar in different fonts.
For all the reasons above, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the NATIXIS marks and that Complainant has established the first element of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In order to establish the second element of the Policy, the Complainant has to show that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent, according to WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. In these proceedings, this Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and such showing has not been rebutted by the Respondent, as it did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as there is no business or legal relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent. Moreover, the disputed domain name is not used, suggesting that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in registering or using the disputed domain name.
As noted, the contentions of the Complainant had not been rebutted by the Respondent, and the Panel agrees with the Complainant that the registration and use of a known trademark in a domain name cannot be considered as bona fide.
Therefore, in the opinion of this Panel, the Complainant has fully demonstrated that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and consequently, the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant asserts different circumstances which the Panel considers relevant evidence for the bad faith of the Respondent in registering and using the disputed domain name.
In this sense, the Complainant asserts that the trademarks NATIXIS are well-known in France and in several other countries, facts which could be established by a simple search on the search engine “” for NATIXIS which gives about 4 million results. As NATIXIS enjoys a wide reputation not only in France but also around the world, it seems unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Respondent’s activities and of the existence of the trademarks and the Complainant’s domain names incorporating a typosquatting version of its NATIXIS trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent.
Moreover, in the opinion of the Complainant, the passive holding of the domain name indicates that the disputed domain name is used in bad faith, as the disputed domain name is not actively used so that there is no real and substantial offer of goods and/or services on a website associated with the disputed domain name.This Panel agrees that the composition of a disputed domain name (consisting of a typosquatting version of NATIXIS) and the circumstances invoked are of the nature to indicate bad faith registration and use. Passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith under WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3.
Accordingly, the Complainant has demonstrated that the Respondent registered and used in bad faith the disputed domain name and therefore, the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is established. 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.
Dr. Beatrice Onica Jarka
Sole Panelist
Date: April 11, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy