The Complainant is Umanis, France, represented by Fidal, France.
The Respondent is Whois Privacy Provider (Obambu SARL), France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar(s)
The disputed domain name is registered with NameWeb BVBA (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 31, 2019. On July 31, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 3, 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 August 6, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 26, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 27, 2019.
The Center appointed Benjamin Fontaine as the sole panelist in this matter on August 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 Complaint does not describe the activities of the Complainant. The only information available in the file is to be found in an email sent by the Complainant to the privacy service provider (Obambu SARL) where it is stated that “Umanis is the French leader in Data, Business Solutions and Digital”.
The Complainant claims the ownership of a number of trademarks consisting in, or containing, the trademark UMANIS, such as:
- European Union trademark UMANIS No 12328449, filed on November 11, 2013.
- European Union trademark UMANIS BEYOND DATA No 17917957, filed on June 14, 2018.
The Complainant is also the owner of a number of domain names consisting in, or containing the trademark UMANIS, including .
The disputed domain name, , was registered by the Respondent on January 8, 2019. His or her true identity is not known, as the Respondent has made use of a privacy service provided for by a third party, Obambu SARL.
The disputed domain name is used to host a website, where a few information is displayed mostly in English, and to a limited extent in French. The heading of the website at the disputed domain name is “Umanis SA”. In one of the extracts of submitted with the Complaint, a trademark UMANIS is displayed with a specific logo and color combination (Umanis is bold and blue, a yellow line on top, and some words in the baseline which are not legible). On top of the page are a phone number and links to popular social media. A number of links are displayed on the webpage, such as “Accueil” (welcome), “Présentation” (presentation), “LTA”, “IST”, “TECKNOPOLE”, etc. the following message is also reproduced in the first page: “About us - At Startup, our mission is to empower people to implement their business ideas to life, help with starting new business projects step-by-step and to guide them until their moment. We are confident that together, we can do everything and even more!” The webpage displays also other logos and short texts dedicated apparently to help develop the business of startups. In the “contact info” section, the website indicates an address in Alexandria (VA), United States, an email address that finishes as “@”, and a website located at “”. Finally, the webpage contains a copyright claim, worded as follows: “© 2019 UMANIS SA. All rights reserved”.
Emails were sent by the Complainant to the privacy service provider, in order to request the transfer of the disputed domain name . The attempts triggered no answer, and therefore the Complainant decided to initiate this proceeding. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
In support of its claim, the Complainant states in particular the following:
Regarding, first, the test of confusing similarity, the Complainant argues that “the disputed domain name is exactly similar to the trademark UMANIS. In the circumstances of the present case the ‘.net’ TLD extension may be ignored for the purposes of comparison as it is a commonplace technical element”.
Regarding, second, the rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, the Complainant indicates that to the best of its knowledge the Respondent does not make any commercial use of the name UMANIS, and does not own trademark rights over UMANIS. Besides, it states that it has not authorized in any way the use of the trademark UMANIS by the Respondent. Instead, the Respondent is “deliberately creating confusion with the Complainant’s business by using the Complainant’s identity, reproducing without any prior authorization the Complainant’s trademark, and taking ownership of the Complainant’s services”.
Finally, on the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the Complainant indicates that the website of the Respondent reproduces without authorization the trademark UMANIS, and is a fake website, which actually provides false contact details. Besides, the Complainant claims that the Respondent has copied extracts from the website of the Complainant in the field of Business Solutions: the wording used in some areas is allegedly very similar. With all this behavior, the Respondent “is using the identity of Umanis and aims to create confusion with the Complainant in order to give credibility to its scams and phishing operations”. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant prove all of the following three elements in order to be successful in these proceedings:
(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 was registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel notes that the Complainant has failed to file copies of the trademark rights claimed as a basis for this proceeding. It has, however, filed a table which contains a list of allegedly registered trademarks UMANIS. The Panel has therefore undertaken a limited factual research on the trademark databases available publicly, to confirm the existence of some of the trademark rights claimed by the Complainant. These include in particular the European Union trademark UMANIS No 12328449, filed on November 11, 2013. This registration combines the word UMANIS, reproduced in red and in a specific typescript, with a logo consisting in a fingerprint.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the above-quoted trademark of the Complainant, in accordance with the standards of the Policy. The disputed domain name reproduces, without any alteration or addition, the word “UMANIS” which is the distinctive and dominant element of the trademark registration.
Therefore, the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under the Policy, a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
As indicated by the Complainant, the Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the disputed domain name, or to have been licensed or otherwise authorized by the Complainant to use its trademark in a domain name or otherwise.
The Respondent, who chose not to respond to the Complaint, has not made any such claim. Instead, the overall circumstances of this case, which will be reviewed hereinafter in the assessment of bad faith registration and use, tend to confirm a lack of right or legitimate interest.
The Complainant is therefore deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
In order to prevail under the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must demonstrate that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists a number of circumstances which, without limitation, are deemed to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. These are:
(i) circumstances indicating that [a respondent has] registered or acquired a disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name to the complainant or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [the respondent’s] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or
(ii) [the respondent has] registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the complainant from reflecting the complainant’s trademark or service mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) [the respondent has] registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the disputed 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.
A number of elements confirm that the disputed domain name was indeed registered, and is being used, in bad faith.
First, the Respondent has chosen a name, “UMANIS”, which to the Panel’s knowledge has no meaning whatsoever, at least in French and English, which are the languages used by the Respondent in his or her website. This disputed domain name was not chosen, therefore, on account of a potential descriptive meaning. It was chosen precisely because it is a coined word on which the Complainant owns numerous trademark rights and domain names. Even if the Complainant has not made or substantiated any claim of notoriety, the P notes that its trademark is inherently very distinctive, and that its wide domain name portfolio implies a strong presence online.
Second, the Respondent is trying to impersonate the identity of the Complainant, with the mention in particular of “UMANIS SA” on its website and in the copyright claim. Such use, made as a company name, is likely to create confusion with the Complainant and its activities.
Third, the content of the website of the Respondent is everything but convincing. It is indeed a fake website, with a basic content, created simply with the purpose of providing a first impression of authenticity. In truth however, it mixes languages and provides links which do not function properly for a number of them.
Fourth, the website of the Respondent provides contact details which are incorrect, such as an email address which does not function, or a reference to another website which is actually not available. Besides, the mention of an address in the United States of America seems also to be a fake address (as the Respondent seems to be based in France).
Finally, the Respondent has hidden his or her identity using a privacy service. This is further evidence of bad faith, all the more so in the context of an apparent commercial use of the disputed domain name.
All in all, the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name with the purpose of creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its trademarks, possibly with the objective of conducting fraudulent activities.
Accordingly, the third criteria set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is also 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.
Benjamin Fontaine
Sole Panelist
Date: September 12, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy