The Complainant is AXA SA, France, represented by Selarl Candé - Blanchard - Ducamp, France.
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States of America. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names and are registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 6, 2019. On May 6, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On May 6, 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 May 13, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 2, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 3, 2019.
The Center appointed Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira as the sole panelist in this matter on June 17, 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 insurance company headquartered in Paris, France. The Complainant operates in several countries and can trace its history back to the 18th century, resulting in the AXA Goup after several mergers, acquisitions, and name changes.
The Complainant has officially been known as “AXA” since 1985. The Complainant, AXA SA, is the holding company for the AXA Group.
The Complainant renders insurance and related services under the mark AXA worldwide – it is currently present in 64 countries and employs over 160,000 people. The Complainant and its subsidiaries have been rendering their services under the AXA 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 AXA trademark, as well as for domain names incorporating “AXA”, covering a wide range of services, including but not limited to property and casualty insurance, life insurance and savings, asset management. These registrations include, for example, French trademark No. 1 270 658 from January 10, 1984, as well as international trademark No. 490 030, registered on December 5, 1984. Proofs of these registrations were duly produced in the Complaint.
Prior to Complaint filing, the disputed domain name resolved to a website offering pornographic websites. The disputed domain names were registered on January 9, 2019. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names and are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks registered and used worldwide. In fact, the only distinctive word integrating the disputed domain name is “AXA”, which is identical to the Complainant’s registered mark.
The terms chosen by the Respondent to compose the disputed domain names together with “AXA” are “health insurance” and “medical insurance”, which are directly related to the Complainant’s main activities. This descriptive terms do not negate the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark.
The Complainant submits that prior to the presentation of this Complaint, the Complainant attempted to contact the Respondent to seek a settlement on the dispute, and the Respondent answered with a proposition to sell the disputed domain names.
The disputed domain names adopted by the Respondent – a reproduction of the Complainant’s registered mark associated with descriptive expressions – show a clear intention of misleading the Internet users to their respective websites. The Complainant underlines that the disputed domain names give the impression that they are in some way associated with the Complainant. 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 AXA, registered throughout the world. In addition, the Complainant has been providing a full range of insurance and related services worldwide for decades, and under the AXA mark for at least 34 years.
Further, the Panel finds that disputed domain names and are 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 descriptive terms.
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 AXA 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 AXA 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 AXA, and its direct relation to the Complainant.
In fact, the Complainant presented evidence that the disputed domain names have been used to offer explicit pornographic content and links to several pornographic websites.
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 names with the purpose of taking advantage of the Complainant’s mark.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names were likely registered to mislead consumers – hence the addition of the expressions “health insurance” and “medical insurance”. Further, the additional expressions 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 names are associated with the Complainant, and the Panel accepts that the disputed domain names may be intended for illegitimate purposes.
Furthermore, evidence in the proceeding leads the Panel to conclude that the Respondent may not be the real owner of the disputed domain names, as it is a service providing privacy proxy registration, which in the circumstances is further evidence of registration and use in bad faith.
Lastly, proof has been submitted of several notifications and attempts of contacting the Respondent. The Respondent answered offering both disputed domain names for sale. Since the Complainant refused the offer, the Respondent lowered the price and added that the Complainant could “go to the WIPO”.
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 names and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names 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 names and be transferred to the Complainant.
Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira
Sole Panelist
Date: June 27, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy