The Complainant is Agfa-Gevaert N.V., Belgium, represented by Novagraaf Belgium NV/SA, Belgium.
The Respondent is Solomon Ibeka, Nigeria. 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 1, 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 the Complainant on October 4, 2019, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on October 8, 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 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 November 1, 2019. The Center appointed Assen Alexiev as the sole panelist in this matter on November 6, 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 active in the medical sector as a developer of medical software and manufacturer of medical imaging devices. The Complainant owns the following trademark registrations for the sign AGFA (the “AGFA trademark”): - the European Union trademark AGFA with registration No. 003353463, registered on January 24, 2005 for goods and services in International Classes 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 40, and 42; and - the European Union trademark AGFA with registration No. 008820979, registered on July 5, 2010 for goods in International Class 5. The Complainant is also the registrant of the domain name The disputed domain name was registered on June 5, 2019. It resolves to a website that advertises the services of a hospital in Dubai. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s AGFA trademark as it reproduces it in its entirety with the addition of the descriptive word “hospital” and the letters “ae” referring to the United Arab Emirates where the hospital advertised on the Respondent’s website is located, which only adds to the risk of confusion, given the activities of the Complainant. The Respondent thus creates confusion as consumers may believe that the disputed domain name refers to the Complainant. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, as the Respondent has not been commonly known by the name AGFA, and the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use the AGFA trademark or any domain name including the AGFA trademark. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant submits in this regard that the AGFA trademark is famous and far predates the registration of the disputed domain name, so the Respondent must have been fully aware of the Complainant when selecting the disputed domain name, and has selected it in view of the attractiveness of the AGFA trademark to create the impression that it is affiliated with the Complainant, which is supported by the fact that the second part of the disputed domain name - the descriptive word “hospital”, refers to the Complainant’s activities. According to the Complainant, this shows that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s AGFA trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a), the Complainant must prove each of the following to justify the transfer of the disputed domain name: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. In this case, the Center has employed the required measures to achieve actual notice of the Complaint to the Respondent, in compliance with the Rules, paragraph 2(a), and the Respondent was given a fair opportunity to present its case. By the Rules, paragraph 5(c)(i), it is expected of a respondent to: “[r]espond specifically to the statements and allegations contained in the complaint and include any and all bases for the Respondent (domain name holder) to retain registration and use of the disputed domain name …” The Respondent has however not submitted a Response and has thus not disputed the Complainant’s statements and evidence in this proceeding. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has provided evidence and has thus established its rights in the AGFA trademark. The Panel notes that a common practice has emerged under the Policy to disregard in appropriate circumstances the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) section of domain names for the purposes of the comparison under the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). The Panel sees no reason not to follow the same approach here, so it will disregard the “.com” gTLD section of the disputed domain name. The relevant part of the disputed domain name is therefore the sequence “agfahospitalae”, in which the elements “agfa”, “hospital” and “ae” are easily discernible. The “agfa” element is identical to the distinctive AGFA trademark and dominates in the disputed domain name, while the “hospital” element is a descriptive word that is related to the goods for which the AGFA trademark is registered and to the field of activity of the Complainant, and the “ae” element refers to the United Arab Emirates where the hospital advertised on the Respondent’s website is located. In view of this, the inclusion of this element in the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the AGFA trademark. In view of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the AGFA trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, UDRP panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often-impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, stating that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and has not been authorized by the Complainant to register or use any domain name incorporating the AGFA trademark, and that the Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, since the registration of the AGFA trademark preceded the registration of the disputed domain name for years. The Complainant also points out that the disputed domain name is being used in connection with a website of a hospital in Dubai. Thus, the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not alleged that is has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and has not disputed the statements of the Complainant and the evidence submitted by it. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the distinctive AGFA trademark, and resolves to an active website that offers hospital services. These services are related to the activities of the Complainant, which produces medical software and medical imaging devices. The website includes the copyright notice “© 2019 Agfa Hospital”. In view of the above and in the lack of any explanation by the Respondent or evidence to the contrary, the Panel is satisfied that it is more likely than not that the Respondent, being aware of the goodwill of the AGFA trademark, has registered and used the disputed domain name in an attempt to exploit the trademark’s goodwill by attracting Internet users to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain by confusing them that it is affiliated to the Complainant. In the Panel’s view, this conduct of the Respondent does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and therefore does not give rise to rights and legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists four illustrative alternative circumstances that shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith by a respondent, namely: (i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your 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 your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location. As discussed above, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the distinctive AGFA trademark and resolves to an active website that offers hospital services, which are related to the goods and services offered by the Complainant. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not received any authorization for its activities by the Complainant, and the Respondent does not dispute the statements of the Complainant or offer any plausible explanation of its actions. Taking the above into account, the Panel accepts as more likely than not that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant and targeting the AGFA trademark. It is likely that by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s AGFA trademark, the Respondent has attempted to attract traffic to the disputed domain name and confuse Internet users that they are reaching an online location affiliated to the Complainant and then offer them hospital services for commercial gain. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. 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 Assen Alexiev
Sole Panelist
Date: November 13, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy