The Complainant is Man Group plc, United Kingdom, represented by Dehns, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 28, 2020. On April 30, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 30, 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 May 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 May 7, 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 May 11, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 31, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 8, 2020. On June 11, 2020, due to an apparent issue with the notification, the Center granted the Respondent a five day period in which to indicate whether it wished to participate to this proceeding. No communication was received from the Respondent. The Center appointed Taras Kyslyy as the sole panelist in this matter on June 25, 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 an investment management company which was initially founded in 1783 by James Man as a sugar cooperage and brokerage. It now has over 25 years of experience in global investment management. The Complainant provides a range of funds for private and institutional clients, and manages USD 104.2 billion in funds (as of March 31, 2020) for its global clients. The Complainant and its subsidiaries/related companies own numerous registrations for its trademark M MAN logo, including inter alia the United Kingdom trademark registration No. 2547917, registered on September 17, 2010. The disputed domain name was registered on September 18, 2019 and resolves to a website in French and English purportedly offering investment services under the Man Investments sign. The disputed domain name is on the list of the French financial regulatory authority, Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF), for blacklisted companies or websites, warnings and/or usurpations of regulated companies. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name comprises of the dominant element “man” identical to the Complainant’s trademark, in combination with generic/descriptive element “investments”. The phrase “Man Investments” is identical to the dominant portion of the names of several of the Complainant’s wholly owned indirect subsidiaries. The generic Top-Level Domain (the “gTLD”) “.com” shall be ignored for the purposes of assessing the similarity. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is offering investments services through the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered and unregistered marks/names, under a mark/name that is confusingly similar to that of the Complainant, without the appropriate financial authorizations in place. Therefore, the use being made of the disputed domain name is not bona fide or legitimate commercial use. This use is fraudulent as it is likely to deceive consumers into believing that the Respondent is associated with/related to the Complainant, and that the Respondent is regulated by the appropriate financial bodies, when this is not the case. Before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparation to use, a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bone fide offering of goods and services. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain misleadingly to divert consumers or to tarnish the Complainant’s name. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. By using the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered and unregistered marks/names to offer investment services under a mark/name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark/name, and with reference to a company name that is closely similar to several of the names of the Complainant’s wholly owned indirect subsidiaries, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to misrepresent itself as being associated with/related to the Complainant, with a view to defrauding consumers and/or trading off the Complainant’s global reputation and/or diverting consumers away from the Complainant and/or damaging the goodwill or reputation of the Complainant through the defrauding of consumers. The disputed domain name was registered in a manner which, at the time when the registration took place, took unfair advantage of the Complainant’s rights. The disputed domain name is being used in a manner which takes unfair advantage of, and infringes, the Complainant’s rights. The disputed domain name was registered for the purpose of unfairly disrupting the business of the Complainant. The disputed domain name is being used by the Respondent in a manner which intentionally attracts, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in its registered trademark. According to section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (the “WIPO Overview 3.0”), the applicable gTLD in a domain name (e.g., “.com”, “.club”, “.nyc”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. Thus, the Panel disregards the gTLD “.com” for the purposes of the confusing similarity test in the present case. According to section 1.8 of the 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. The Panel finds that in the present case the Complainant’s trademark is sufficiently recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of hyphen and descriptive word “investments” related to the Complainant’s activities do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s mark. The Panel further notes that the overall facts and circumstances of this case (including relevant website content) also support a finding of confusing similarity as it appears that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name precisely because it believed that the disputed domain name was confusingly similar to the trademark held by the Complainant. Considering the above, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has established prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent provided no evidence that it holds a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, which could demonstrate its right or legitimate interest (see, e.g., World Natural Bodybuilding Federation, Inc. v. Daniel Jones TheDotCafe,WIPO Case No. D2008-0642). The Complainant did not license or otherwise agree for use of its prior registered trademarks by the Respondent, thus no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name could be reasonably claimed (see, e.g., Sportswear Company S.P.A. v. Tang Hong, WIPO Case No. D2014-1875). The Complainant asserts that it first became aware of the disputed domain name, as a result of an alert from the French financial regulatory authority AMF, who had become aware of the website operated by the Respondent and suspected it of offering investment services to French consumers without possessing the relevant authorizations. The AMF believed that the Respondent was misusing the Complainant’s name for fraudulent purposes, and sought the Complainant’s confirmation in this regard. The Complainant confirmed that this was indeed the case, and the AMF published details of the disputed domain name on its blacklist on February 3, 2020 as a warning to third parties. According to section 2.13.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, UDRP panels have consistently held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. According to section 2.13.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, UDRP panels are generally not prepared however to accept merely conclusory or wholly unsupported allegations of illegal activity […]. On the other hand, UDRP panels have found that circumstantial evidence can support a complainant’s otherwise credible claim of illegal respondent activity. In the present case, the Panel finds that the additional term “investments” in the disputed domain name directly related to the Complainant’s activities, therefore the composition of the disputed domain name effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. Further, based on the case file, the disputed domain name has been blacklisted by the French financial regulatory authority AMF, which indicates the disputed domain name is likely used for illegal activity and thus cannot confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent. Considering the above, the Panel finds the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith At the time of the registration of the disputed domain name the Respondent knew, or at least should have known about the existence of the Complainant’s prior registered and widely-known trademark, which confirms bad faith (see, e.g., The Gap, Inc. v. Deng Youqian,WIPO Case No. D2009-0113). According to section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 , the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. The Panel is convinced that the Complainant’s trademark is well established through long and widespread use and the Complainant has acquired a significant reputation and level of goodwill in its trademark both in the United Kingdom and internationally. Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark was registered in bad faith. The Panel also finds that use of the disputed domain name for investment services blacklisted by the French financial regulatory authority AMF indicates the disputed domain name is likely used for illegal activity and thus such use is manifestly considered as evidence of bad faith. Considering the above, the Panel finds the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the Complainant has established its case under 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 Taras Kyslyy
Sole Panelist
Date: June 28, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy