The Complainant is Bollore, France, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is Whois Privacy Protection Foundation, Netherlands / Prince Sammy, 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 February 24, 2020. On February 24, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On February 24, 2020, 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 March 4, 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 March 10, 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 March 10, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 30, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 31, 2020. The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on April 12, 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 was founded in 1822 and deals in transportation and logistics, communications and media, electricity storage and solutions. The Complainant is one of the largest companies in the world and is listed on the Paris Stock Exchange. The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks for BOLLORÉ, such as the International trademark BOLLORÉ & design, Registration No. 704697, registered on December 11, 1998. In addition, the Complainant owns various domain names such as: - The Disputed Domain Name The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows: Identical or confusingly similar The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BOLLORE trademark. Since the substitution of the letter “o” by the letter “a” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant further states, that this is a clear case of “typosquatting”. Finally, the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.net” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark. Rights or legitimate interests The Complainant states that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. In addition, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. Furthermore, the Disputed Domain Name is a typosquatted version of the BOLLORE trademark. Consequently, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the Disputed Domain Name. Registration and use in bad faith The Complainant argues that the BOLLORE trademark is well known. Thus, is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the Disputed Domain Name without knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark. The substitution of the letter “o” by the letter “a” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the BOLLORE trademark. In addition, the Complainant contends, that the misspelling was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark. Finally, the Disputed Domain Name resolves to an index page. Furthermore, the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. Thus, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has 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 Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Disputed Domain Name at issue in this case: (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 Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complaint’s trademark BOLLORÉ. The replacement of the letter “o” by the letter “a” represents a misspelling that does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark. Moreover, the misspelling is also hardly noticeable and results in a very minor modification of the Complainant’s trademark. This is a classic example of typosquatting. As section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) states: “A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. (…) Examples of such typos include (i) adjacent keyboard letters, (ii) substitution of similar-appearing characters (e.g., upper vs lower-case letters or numbers used to look like letters), (iii) the use of different letters that appear similar in different fonts, (iv) the use of non-Latin internationalized or accented characters, (v) the inversion of letters and numbers, or (vi) the addition or interspersion of other terms or numbers.” The omission of the accent above the letter “e” and the addition of the gTLD “.net” also do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name: (i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service at issue. There is no evidence of the existence of any of those rights or legitimate interests. The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the Disputed Domain Name or to use the trademark in the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has prior rights in the trademark, which precede the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name. In addition, the Respondent is not known by the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any rights with respect to the Disputed Domain Name. Moreover, it had the opportunity to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests, but it did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. As such, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the second requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent registered and subsequently used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on February 19, 2020, while the Complainant’s International trademark BOLLORÉ & design, Registration No. 704697 was registered on December 11, 1998. The Panel is of the view that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith since it contains an intentionally typographical misspelling of the Complainant’s well-known BOLLORÉ trademark, and is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights when it registered the Disputed Domain Name. The circumstances in the case before this Panel indicate that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the Disputed Domain Name and it has created a domain name being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, with the intention of causing likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s BOLLORÉ trademark, in order to attract Internet users for its own commercial gain. The Disputed Domain Name is currently inactive. As it has been the case in several previous UDRP cases, the fact that the Disputed Domain Name is currently inactive does not prevent a finding of bad faith use. See also WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Considering the distinctiveness and fame of the Complainant’s BOLLORÉ trademark, the failure of the Respondent to submit a response, and the implausibility of any good faith use to which the Disputed Domain Name may be put, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been used in bad faith. Therefore, taking all circumstances into account and for all above reasons, this Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name 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 Pablo A. Palazzi
-
Sole Panelist
Date: April 21, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy