The Complainant is Swissquote Group Holding SA, Switzerland, represented by Inlex IP Expertise, France.
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 30, 2019. On September 30, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 2, 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 October 9, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 29, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 30, 2019. Between November 1 and 4, 2019, the Center received several email communications from an unidentified third party. The Center appointed Clive Duncan Thorne as the sole panelist in this matter on November 14, 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 Swiss company that provides online banking, foreign exchange and trading services. It is also regarded as one of Switzerland’s leading providers of online financial and trading services. The Complainant owns trade mark rights in the mark SWISSQUOTE in respect of advertising, financial and other services which were registered prior to the registration of the disputed domain name The Complainant is also the owner of several domain names and in particular According to evidence submitted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name redirects to a website of an online forex broker. In the absence of a Response and any evidence to the contrary the Panel finds the above evidence as to the Complainant’s rights to be true and proceeds to determine this Complaint accordingly. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant submits: i. That the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trade marks SWISSQUOTE in which it has rights. ii. There is no evidence of the Respondent being entitled to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. iii. On the evidence the disputed domain name is both registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent. The Complainant relies upon the fact that registration of the disputed domain name was made anonymously and that it has been used in bad faith by being used to redirect users to an identical or similar service to that offered by the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. However, the Center received several email communications in Chinese from an unidentified third party, asking for the language of proceeding to be Chinese. According to the evidence provided by the Complainant, the same third party has previously contacted the Complainant and offered the disputed domain name for sale. In any case, those communications will not change the outcome of this Decision. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel, as set out in section 4 above, has found that the Complainant owns trade mark rights in the marks SWISSQUOTE and SWISSQUOTE (plus device). The Complainant submits that the only difference between these marks (apart from the lack of a device which in the Panel’s view is immaterial for this purpose) and the disputed domain name is that the disputed domain name is spelt using one letter “s” rather than two letters “s” as used in the trade marks i.e. consistent with “Swiss” as descriptive of Switzerland. The Complainant asserts that the difference is “obviously not sufficient to outweigh their high degrees of similarities“. The Panel agrees with this submission and finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the marks SWISSQUOTE and SWISSQUOTE (plus device) in which the Complainant has rights. In accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy the Panel finds for the Complainant in respect of this element. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant points out that there is no evidence of any link between it and the Respondent nor is there any evidence of the Respondent having any rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name. In particular, it points out that the disputed domain name is registered anonymously and that this may be regarded as an indication that the Respondent is willing to hide his identity because he has no such rights. Moreover there is no evidence that the Respondent has been authorized by the Complainant to use either SWISSQUOTE or SWISQUOTE. There is no business relationship between the parties. The Complainant also relies upon the fact that there is no evidence that the disputed domain name is being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. This is supported by evidence of bad faith referred to in section 6 C below. In these circumstances and taking into account there is no evidence submitted by the Respondent the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights nor legitimate interests in the disputed domain name within paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is registered in bad faith because the Complainant is “widely known” as an online financial trading house in Switzerland and publishes an “eponymous” magazine, it is quoted on the Swiss stock exchange and its business and marks have existed for more than 20 years prior to registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant also relies upon five earlier UDRP decisions in which it was successful in protecting the mark SWISSQUOTE. Taken together this supports a finding of registration in bad faith because, as is put by the Complainant, the Respondent could not ignore while registering the disputed domain name the prior existence of the Complainant’s trade marks and business activity. It asserts that the disputed domain name was registered “precisely because it (the Respondent) knew the Complainant’s existence, prior rights and its activity”. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is used in bad faith because there is no legitimate or fair use of the domain name. This is evidenced by the fact that the domain name is redirecting directly to the website pages “www.icmarkets.com/au/en/?camp=24184” (exhibited at Annex 12 to the Complaint). The website is owned by IC Markets which is an online forex broker. The disputed domain name is therefore redirecting to a website offering a service which is identical or very similar to the services delivered by the Complainant. In the Panel’s view this is sufficient to establish use in bad faith. The Complainant also submits that when the Complainant on August 20, 2019, contacted the Respondent through its registrar to ascertain whether the disputed domain name was for sale it received a reply from the email address “[...]@gg.com” that it was for sale for USD 15,000 excluding a handling fee. This is well in excess of the transfer costs and is additional evidence of use in bad faith. Taking into account the above evidence and lack of a Response the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is registered and used in bad faith within paragraphs 4(a)(iii) and 4(b) 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 Clive Duncan Thorne
Sole Panelist
Date: November 22, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy