The Complainant is Natixis, France, represented by Inlex IP Expertise, France.
The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Adam Price, PLUS500AU PTY. LTD, Australia. 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 31, 2019. On January 2, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same date, 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 January 6, 2020, 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 January 6, 2020. 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 January 9, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 29, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 30, 2020. The Center appointed Fabrizio Bedarida as the sole panelist in this matter on February 10, 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 corporate and financial services company, part of the BPCE Group. The Complainant uses its NATIXIS trademarks in connection with banking and financial services through its official website, “www.natixis.com”. The Complainant registered the domain names The Complainant has proven to be the owner of the NATIXIS trademark, which enjoys protection through numerous registrations worldwide. The Complainant is, inter alia, the owner of: - French trademark NATIXIS, registration number 3416315, registered on March 14, 2006; The disputed domain name The Complainant’s trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests whatsoever with respect to the disputed domain name; and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order for the Complainant to obtain a transfer of the disputed domain name, paragraph 4(a) of the Policy require that the Complainant must demonstrate to the Panel that: (i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and The Complainant has established rights in the NATIXIS trademark. The disputed domain name consists of the NATIXIS trademark with the addition of the geographical term “London”. The Panel agrees with the Complainant’s assertion that the addition of the geographical term “London” in the disputed domain name is irrelevant in assessing the confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. Indeed, as pointed out by the Complainant, this is in line with section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”): “Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element”. Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the NATIXIS trademark in which the Complainant has rights. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests This Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the name “Natixis” or by any similar name. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant, and the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use or register any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademarks. The Respondent does not appear to make any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor any use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. In fact, it appears from the record of this case that the disputed domain name points to a parking page where hyperlinks are displayed, including links related to financial services. Finally, the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions made by the Complainant, claiming any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel, on the basis of the evidence presented, accepts and agrees with the Complainant’s contentions that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. Based on the evidence put forward by the Complainant, the Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark registrations and rights to the NATIXIS trademark when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. In fact, the Complainant’s trademark is well-known and has been registered and used for several years. It enjoys a widespread reputation and a high degree of recognition in the financial field. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s marks and intentionally intended to create an association with the Complainant and its business, and that the Respondent must have had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. In addition, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a parking page where hyperlinks also related to financial services are displayed constitutes a disruption of the Complainant’s business and qualifies as bad faith registration and use under the Policy. Finally, the Respondent has not responded to, let alone denied, the assertions of bad faith made by the Complainant in this proceeding, it is reasonable to assume that if the Respondent had legitimate purposes for registering and using the disputed domain name the Respondent would have responded. Accordingly, the Panel finds, on the basis of the evidence presented, that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Therefore, the Complainant has satisfied 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 disputed domain name Fabrizio Bedarida
- European Union trademark NATIXIS, registration number 005129176, registered on June 21, 2007;
- International trademark NATIXIS, registration number 1071008, registered on April 21, 2010.
The renown of the Complainant’s NATIXIS trademark has already been recognized by previous UDRP panels.
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of 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
Sole Panelist
Date: February 12, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy