The Complainant is CMA CGM, France, represented by Inlex IP Expertise, France.
The Respondent is Privacy Protect, LLC (Privacyprotect.org) / Richard Alegbe, South Africa. 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 27, 2020. On February 27, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 27, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name that differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 10, 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 13, 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 24, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 13, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 15, 2020. The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on April 21, 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 large global container shipping and transport company with its headquarters in Marseille, France. The Complainant operates in more than 160 countries through its network of over 755 agencies, with more than 110,000 employees worldwide. It serves over 420 of the world's 521 commercial ports and operates the following main activities: freight, shipping, intermodal and logistics. The Complainant has numerous trademark registrations containing CMA-CGM, such as International trademark nos. 729369, 879781 and 1391139, registered on February 25, 2000, December 22, 2005 and November 16, 2017, respectively. The Complainant has also registered numerous domain names that incorporate the Complainant’s trademarks, in particular the domain name According to the Registrar, the Domain Name was registered on December 25, 2019. At the time of the Complaint and at the time of drafting the Decision, the Domain Name redirected to a parking page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant has registered trademark rights in CMA-CGM. The Complainant submits that the Domain Name adopts the Complainant’s trademark, and that the addition of “shipping line”, is not likely to avoid the confusion. On the contrary, it increases the confusion. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent has not been allowed by the Complainant to make any use of its trademark. To the Complainant knowledge, the Respondent has no right or authorization concerning the use of the specific term CMA CGM, no trademark registered and no activity under the name CMA-CGM or similar names built around the term CMA-CGM associated to the generic words describing the Complainant activity. The Complainant argues that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s well-known trademarks when he registered the Domain Name. This is reinforced by the fact that the Respondent has added “shipping line”, which designates the main activity of the Complainant. The Domain Name was redirecting, until February 6, 2020, to a website that consisted in a copy of the Complainant’s official website. At the website, the Respondent conducted phishing activities through the link “log in to My Account” where the Respondent collected the personal data of the Complainant’s customers. 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 trademark rights. 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 with the addition of “shipping line”. The addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. For assessing confusing similarity, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11. 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 The Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark. Based on the evidence, the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired unregistered rights. The way the Respondent has used the Domain Name, is not bona fide, rather evidence of bad faith, see below. The Panel finds 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 Taking into account the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name, the Panel concludes that the Respondent knew of the Complainant and its business when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to conduct phishing activities, is clear evidence of bad faith. The Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of 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: April 22, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy