The Complainant is Sopra Steria Group, France, represented by Herbert Smith Freehills Paris LLP, France.
The Respondent is Xu Chun Min (许春敏), China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 3, 2020. On June 3, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 4, 2020, 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. On June 4, 2020, the Center sent a communication to the Parties, in English and Chinese, regarding the language of the proceeding. On June 5, 2020, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding. 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 June 12, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 2, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 3, 2020. The Center appointed Joseph Simone as the sole panelist in this matter on July 13, 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 established in September 2014 upon the merger of Sopra Group and Groupe Steria SCA, two companies that were founded respectively in 1968 and 1969. The Complainant is a leading international player in consulting and information technology services, as well as software publishing, and it operates in Asia, Europe, and North Africa. The Complainant has an extensive global trademark portfolio of SOPRA trademarks, which include the following: - European Union Trade mark Registration No. 3233335 registered on February 3, 2005 in Classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41, and 42; - International Trademark Registration No. 1163226 registered on April 8, 2013 in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, and 42, designating China. The disputed domain name was registered on February 15, 2020. At the time of filing the Complaint, the Complainant claimed that at least until March 31, 2020, the disputed domain name resolved to a website with a landing page that reproduced the Complainant’s registered “sopra banking” logo mark. On May 29, 2020, the disputed domain name resolved to a webpage indicating “Network Error”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant asserts that it has prior rights in the SOPRA trademarks and that it is a leading player in its fields of business. The Complainant further notes that the disputed domain name registered to and used by the Respondent is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SOPRA mark, in that it incorporates the SOPRA mark in its entirety, and the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") “.asia” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant asserts that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the SOPRA mark, and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has used, or undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. On the contrary, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, with an intent to misappropriate the Complainant’s identity, or at least to create confusion. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Language of the Proceedings In accordance with paragraph 11 of the Rules: “[…] the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.” In this case, the Registration Agreement of the Registrar is in Chinese. Hence, the language of proceeding should be in Chinese. However, the Complainant filed the Complaint in English and requested that English be the language of the proceeding, asserting that English is the fairest neutral language for the proceeding. The Panel finds that the Respondent was notified of each step of the proceeding in both Chinese and English but did not submit any formal responses. The Panel also notes that the Complainant has provided evidence that the disputed domain name resolved to a website in English. Given this, the Respondent likely understands English, and the Panel sees no reason to request the Complainant to resubmit the Complaint in Chinese. Accordingly, the Panel decides that the language of the proceeding shall be in English, and the Penal shall proceed with a decision in English. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel acknowledges that the Complainant has established rights in the trademarks SOPRA in many territories around the world. The disputed domain name incorporates the prominent SOPRA trademarks in their entirety, and therefore, disregarding the “.asia” gTLD, the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s SOPRA trademarks. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy in establishing its rights in the SOPRA trademarks and in showing that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its marks. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of producing evidence in support of its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant may be deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its trademark, and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has used, or undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, it appears that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name likely in relation to fraudulent purposes. Thus, the Complainant has established its prima facie case with sufficient evidence. The Respondent did not file a response and has therefore failed to assert factors or put forth evidence to establish that it enjoys rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. As such, the Panel concludes that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that none of the circumstances of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy is evident in this case. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be considered evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant (the owner of the trademark or service mark) or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) circumstances indicating that the respondent is using the domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location. The examples of bad faith registration and use set forth in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are not meant to be exhaustive of all circumstances from which such bad faith may be found. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. The overriding objective of the Policy is to curb the abusive registration of domain names in circumstances where the registrant seeks to profit from and exploit the trademark of another. Match.com, LP v. Bill Zag and NWLAWS.ORG,WIPO Case No. D2004-0230. For the reasons discussed under this and the preceding heading, the Panel considers that the Respondent’s conduct in this case constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. In the Panel’s assessment, the Respondent was plainly aware of the Complainant’s marks when registering the disputed domain name. In the absence of any explanation from the Respondent, the Panel concludes that the Respondent’s primary motive in relation to the registration and use of the disputed domain name was to capitalize on, or otherwise take advantage of, the Complainant’s trademark rights, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks with the intent to unlawfully profit therefrom. The conduct described above falls squarely within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy and accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to 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 Joseph Simone
Sole Panelist
Date: July 27, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy