The Complainant is AXA SA, France, represented by Selarl Candé - Blanchard - Ducamp, France. The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Daniel Blondela, France. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 15, 2020. On June 15, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On June 19, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 24, 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 amendment to the Complaint on June 26, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 29, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 19, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 20, 2020. The Center appointed Marie-Emmanuelle Haas as the sole panelist in this matter on July 31, 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. On August 18, 2020, the Panel issued a procedural order requesting the Complainant to produce additional pieces of evidence. On September 7, 2020, the Complainant submitted additional pieces of evidence. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is the company AXA SA, which is one of the biggest and oldest companies around the world in insurance and banking services. The Complainant is the holding company of the AXA Group. The Complainant is present in 57 countries, has millions of clients, individual and professional, and hundreds of thousands of employees. The Complainant is the owner of many trademarks consisting the wording “axa”, such as: - The word International trademark AXA No. 490030 designating 29 countries, registered on December 5, 1984 in classes 35, 36, and 39; - The semi-figurative United States trademark AXA No. 2072157, registered on June 17, 1997 in class 36; - The semi-figurative European Union trademark AXA No. 000373894, registered on July 29, 1998 in classes 35 and 36; - The word European Union trademark AXA No. 008772766, registered on September 7, 2012 in classes 35 and 36; - The word French trademark No. 1270658, registered on January 10, 1984 in classes 35, 36, and 42. The Complainant contends that it is also the owner of several domain names incorporating the AXA trademarks, such as: - - - The Complainant also mentions the domain name The disputed domain names The Complainant has sent three emails to the Respondent on May 4, 12, and 20, 2020, using the email address available on the WhoIs. It notified its rights on the AXA trademarks and requested to immediately stop any use of the disputed domain names as well as to stop any use of the AXA trademark. As of May 6, 2020, the disputed domain name On the same day, the disputed domain name The Complainant informed its clients and more generally the Internet users of the litigious practices using the disputed domain names on June 11, 2020, in a section called “AXA IM Alerts-AXA IM Global” available on the website “www.axa-im.com”. The scenario of the Respondent was to contact individuals “pretending to be affiliated with AXA IM to invest LIBRA cryptocurrency products. Upon leaving their contact details, individuals are contacted by AXA TECHVIEW UNITED KINGDOM” using email addresses such as “[…]@axatechviewou.com”. They are asked to provide personal data and bank details which are sensitive and confidential data. The Complainant produces some of these litigious emails, one of them including a fake contract called “Contrat découverte AXATECHVIEWOU”. This contract required to provide personal and financial data together with a copy of the related official documents, such as a copy of the identity card. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The AXA trademarks are well known around the world in the field of insurance and financial services, “AXA” which as itself no particular meaning and is highly distinctive. The Complainant adds that the addition of the generic words “tech”, “view”, and “ou”, which is the French translation for the English word “or”, is not sufficient to prevent the public from being confused. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights and/or legitimate interests to justify the use of the Complainant’s trademarks. To the Complainant, the registrant, WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., does not have any legitimate interest in using the disputed domain names and is not their real owner. It is a service offered by the Registrar providing privacy proxy registration. Thus, domain name ownership details are kept private. The Complainant submits that the Complainant has never licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademarks or to register any domain name including the above-mentioned trademarks and that there is no relationship whatsoever between the involved Parties. The Respondent has clearly adopted the Complainant’s trademark, which has acquired a substantial reputation around the world, for its own use and incorporated it into the disputed domain names without the Complainant’s authorization. The Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain names or even associated with the name AXA, whereas the AXA trademark appears to be well known. The Respondent is not making a fair use of the disputed domain names without intent for commercial gain and is misleadingly diverting consumers. It was using the disputed domain names for scamming and phishing purposes to collect sensitive data in targeting AXA’s customers. The Complainant adds that as provided in section 2.13 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), UDRP panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity can never confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent. The disputed domain names were registered in bad faith in order to take predatory advantage of the Complainant’s reputation. The Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s AXA trademarks by incorporating entirely these trademarks into the disputed domain names at the time of their registration. The Complainant relies on a decision, Accenture Global Services Limited v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Joshua Kimac,WIPO Case No. D2018-1641 ( The Respondent registered the disputed domain names in April 2020 and was using the disputed domain names for scamming purposes, pretending to be affiliated with AXA IM, to encourage people to invest in LIBRA cryptocurrency products. It was also used to collect sensitive data including proof of identity, proof of address and bank details and to login to the following websites: “www.axatechviewou.com”, “www.axatechview.com”, and “www.techviewou-axa.com”. To the Complainant, this illegal activity constitutes proof of use in bad faith of the disputed domain names, according to the section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 which provides that: “the use of a domain name for per se illegitimate activity such as the sale of counterfeit goods or phishing can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent, such behavior is manifestly considered evidence of bad faith.” The Respondent chose not to answer to the Complainant’s three notices sent on May 4, 12, and 20, 2020. The Complainant contends that failure to respond to a complainant’s efforts to make contact provides strong support for a determination of bad faith registration and use. It relies on a decision, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. John Zuccarini and The Cupcake Patrol a/ka Country Walk a/k/a Cupcake Party,WIPO Case No. D2000-0330. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain names. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has submitted evidence (noted above) of its prior registered AXA trademarks which are protected in European Union, France, and in other countries. The Complainant’s AXA trademarks are well known in European Union, and, outside the European Union for insurance and banking services. The addition of the letters “ou” rather seems to have a phonetical meaning, emphasizing the pronunciation in English of the French term “view”. The adjunction of the generic words “tech” and “view” in the disputed domain names does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s AXA trademarks. The generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”) “.com” is a standard registration requirement, and may be disregarded when determining identity or confusing similarity under the first element. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s AXA trademarks. The condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has therefore been satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names by demonstrating any of the following: (i) before any notice to it of the dispute, the respondent’s 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) the respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) the respondent is 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 mark at issue. The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint. Consequently, it did not provide any evidence or allege any circumstance to establish that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent is not known under the disputed domain names and has not been licensed or authorized to use the well-known AXA trademark or to register the disputed domain names. The disputed domain names were used to send advertisement from a company pretending to be affiliated with AXA and to collect personal data. Therefore, this use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. In the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in relation to the disputed domain names, which the Respondent has not rebutted. The condition of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has therefore been satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out examples of circumstances that will be considered by a panel to be evidence of bad faith registration and use of a domain name. It provides that: For the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or the respondent has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is 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) the respondent has 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) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’s 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 the respondent’s website or location. The scenario of the Respondent was to contact individuals “pretending to be affiliated with AXA IM to invest LIBRA cryptocurrency products. Upon leaving their contact details, individuals are contacted by AXA TECHVIEW UNITED KINGDOM” using the email addresses “[…]@axatechviewou.com” and “[…]@techviewouaxa.com”. They are asked to provide personal data and bank details which are sensitive and confidential data. The Respondent first referred to the company AXA IM, which does exist and belongs to the AXA Group. At a second step, it answered under the name of a company called Axa Techview. This is why the disputed domain names are composed with the name of this so-called Axa Techview British Company. Given the well-known character of the AXA trademark around the world, and the fact that the Respondent was using the disputed domain names pretending to be affiliated with AXA IM, the Panel finds that the Respondent was perfectly aware of the Complainant’s rights in the AXA trademarks, and that it targeted the Complainant, when it registered the disputed domain names. The use of a privacy service to register the disputed domain names to hide the Respondent’s identity contributes to prove bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith. The disputed domain names incorporate both the AXA well-known trademark and the name of the so-called British company Axa Techview in order to make the scenario here above described real. The Panel has to take into consideration that insurance and banking services are strictly regulated, to protect professionals as well as their customers. Therefore, it cannot be tolerated that an individual or a company registers without any authorization, and uses domain names incorporating a trademark protected for insurance or banking services. It cannot even less be tolerated when the trademark at issue is well known. The described scenario aims at collecting personal data which has to remain confidential. It characterizes a fraudulent behavior, in the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. For all the above reasons, the Panel is of the opinion that the disputed domain names satisfy the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith by the Respondent. 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 names, Marie-Emmanuelle Haas
Sole Panelist
Date: September 9, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy