The Complainant is Ageas SA/NV, Belgium, represented by Gevers Legal NV, Belgium.
The Respondent is Tri Nguy\u1ec5n [Tri Nguyễn], Viet Nam. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain names The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 22, 2020. On June 22, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Names. On June 23, 2020, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their 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 25, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrars, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 29, 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 July 1, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 21, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 22, 2020. The Center appointed Lynda M. Braun as the sole panelist in this matter on July 30, 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 Belgian public limited company headquartered in Brussels, Belgium. The Complainant is one of Belgium’s largest insurance companies and operates in fourteen countries, typically through joint ventures such as MB Ageas Life in Viet Nam, with a total of more than 39 million customers. The Complainant is the owner of the trade name “Ageas” derived from its company name, which is commonly used in its communications to customers and others on its website. The Complainant owns the domain name The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations in Europe and Asia, including, but not limited to, the following: Mark Jurisdiction Registration Number Registration Date AGEAS (word) Benelux 0883432 June 22, 2010 AGEAS (figurative) Benelux 0878947 April 1, 2011 AGEAS (word) European Union 009143686 April 1, 2011 AGEAS (figurative) European Union 009368853 August 31, 2012 AGEAS (figurative) International Trademark (including Viet Nam designation) 1249640 April 4, 2015 In addition, the Complainant owns numerous other trademarks in jurisdictions throughout Europe and Asia. The above trademarks will collectively be referred to as the “AGEAS Mark”. The Disputed Domain Names In April 2020, the Complainant’s representative contacted the Respondent to request transfer of the Disputed Domain Names at issue here. The Respondent did not respond. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The following are the Complainant’s contentions: - the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; - the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names; and - the Disputed Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant seeks the transfer of the Disputed Domain Names from the Respondent to the Complainant in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order for the Complainant to prevail and have the Disputed Domain Names transferred to the Complainant, the Complainant must prove the following (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i-iii)): (i) the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names; and (iii) the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, are the Disputed Domain Names identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. The Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the AGEAS Mark as set forth below. It is uncontroverted that the Complainant has established rights in the AGEAS Mark based on its registered trademarks for the AGEAS Mark. The general rule is that “registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive”. CWI, Inc. v. Domain Administrator c/o Dynadot,WIPO Case No. D2015-1734. The Respondent has not rebutted this presumption, and therefore the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the AGEAS Mark. The Disputed Domain Names consist of the entirety of the AGEAS Mark followed by a generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”) “.online”, “.vip”, and “.xyz”, respectively. It is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark may be deemed confusingly similar to that trademark for purposes of the Policy. See the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7 (where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing). Further, the addition of a gTLD such as “.online”, “.vip”, or “.xyz” in a domain name is technically required. Thus, it is well established that such element may typically be disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. See, e.g., Groupon, Inc. v. Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc. / Vashti Scalise,WIPO Case No. D2016-2087. Thus, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s AGEAS Mark. Accordingly, the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, a complainant has 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 production of evidence that demonstrates 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 3.0, section 2.1. In this case, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case. The Respondent has not submitted any arguments or evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case. Furthermore, the Complainant has not authorized, licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its AGEAS Mark. Nor does the Complainant have any type of business relationship with the Respondent. Based on the use made of the Disputed Domain Names to redirect Internet users to the Respondent’s personal Twitter account, the Panel finds that the Respondent was not making a bona fide offering of goods or services nor making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Names. Accordingly, the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that, based on the record, the Complainant has demonstrated the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names pursuant to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy. First, the Respondent has demonstrated bad faith registration and use by attracting, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s online Twitter account and creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s AGEAS Mark. The use of a domain name to attract Internet users to a registrant’s website or other online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with a complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the registrant’s online location for commercial gain demonstrates registration and use in bad faith. Thus, the Respondent’s use of the significant goodwill in the AGEAS Mark by registering the Disputed Domain Names and using those Disputed Domain Names to misdirect visitors to the Respondent’s personal Twitter account demonstrates the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names under the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv). Moreover, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering the Disputed Domain Names to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the AGEAS Mark in corresponding domain names.1 Such a pattern of registering domain names that contain the registered trademarks of third parties demonstrates bad faith. Previous UDRP panels have held that establishing a pattern of bad faith conduct requires more than one, but as few as two instances of abusive domain name registrations. This may include a scenario where a Respondent, on separate occasions, has registered trademark abusive domain names, even where directed at the same brand owner. WIPO Overview 3.0, at 3.1.2; see also Autodesk, Inc. v. Bayram Fatih Aksoy,WIPO Case No. D2016-2000. Accordingly, the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant. 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, Lynda M. Braun 1 In addition, the Respondent’s pattern of bad faith registration includes the domain names
Sole Panelist
Date: August 12, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy