The Complainant is Milipol, France, represented by Cabinet Beau de Lomenie, France.
The Respondent is Luce Khen, Singapore. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 2, 2019. On December 2, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On December 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 December 4, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 24, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 27, 2019. The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on January 16, 2020. 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 Economic Interest Group organizing trade shows and exhibitions related to police equipment, civil and military security, and related services. The Complainant organizes the events MILIPOL exhibitions for homeland security. As an example, the MILIPOL Asia-Pacific show in 2019 attracted 7,370 trade visitors from 79 countries and 301 exhibitors from 38 countries. The Complainant has been using its trademarks MILIPOL and MP MILIPOL since at least as early as 1995. The Complainant owns registrations for its trademarks MILIPOL and MP MILIPOL throughout the world, such as International trademark MILIPOL No. 1379315, registered on September 12, 2017. The Respondent registered the Domain Name on November 12, 2019. At the time of drafting the decision, the Domain Name redirected to a website informing that the domain is suspended. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant has documented trademark registrations in the trademarks MILIPOL and MP MILIPOL. According to the Complainant, the Domain Name is identical or at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. To the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent does not own any rights in any trademarks, which comprise part or the entirety of the Domain Name, nor is the Respondent commonly known under this name. The Complainant has not given its consent for the Respondent to use its registered trademarks in any manner. Consequently, the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name. Finally, the Complainant submits that the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name constitutes bad faith, as the Respondent’s interest cannot be legitimate nor is there a bona fide use. The Complainant’s trademarks were used and registered before the Domain Name was registered. The Complainant has a presence on the Internet and is also known globally. The word “milipol” does not have any ordinary meaning in the English language. The lack of use of the Domain Name does not alter this, as it must be considered as bad faith use under the doctrine of “passive use”. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established rights in the trademarks MILIPOL and MP MILIPOL. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, with the addition the term “tech”. The addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark. For the purposes of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests There is no evidence suggesting that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complainant has not granted any authorization to the Respondent. The Domain Name redirects to a website that informs that the domain has been suspended. Such use is not bona fide. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted prima facie case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Based on the evidence, it is likely that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademarks and its business when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Complainant’s trademark rights predate the Domain Name registration. To the Panel’s knowledge, the word “milipol” does not have any ordinary meaning in the English language. There is a lack of a credible explanation as to why the Respondent has registered the Domain Name. Under the circumstances of this case, the panel concludes that the requirements under the doctrine of passive use are met, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition 3.0, section 3.3. The Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of the paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 Domain Name, Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: January 20, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy