Complainant is Belfius Bank S.A. / Belfius Bank N.V., Belgium, represented by Nelly Imandt, Belgium.
Respondent is ABEL TOURE, Côte d'Ivoire. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 30, 2020. On June 30, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 1, 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 Complainant on July 3, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 3, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 6, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 26, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on July 27, 2020. The Center appointed Stephanie G. Hartung as the sole panelist in this matter on August 10, 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 Complainant is a Belgian bank and financial services provider. Complainant has evidenced to be the owner of several registered trademarks relating to its company name and brand “Belfius” (an invented word composed of “bel” as in “Belgium”, “fi” as in “finance” and the English word “us”), inter alia, the following: - Word mark BELFIUS, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), registration number: 010581205, registration date: May 24, 2012, status: active. Moreover, Complainant has demonstrated to own various domain names relating to its BELFIUS trademark, including the domain name Respondent, according to the disclosed WhoIs information for the disputed domain name, is a resident of the Ivory Coast who registered the disputed domain name on January 31, 2020. By the time of the rendering of this decision, the disputed domain name does not resolve to any active content on the Internet. Complainant, however, has demonstrated that, at some point before the filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name redirected to a website at “www.belfiusinvest.com” set up in the German language and promoting a variety of financial services under a prominently displayed BELFIUS logo. A cease-and-desist notice sent by Complainant on February 27, 2020, to the email address displayed on the website to which the disputed domain name used to resolve, remained unanswered. Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends to be a renowned bank with a solid reputation in Belgium and beyond. Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BELFIUS trademark as it incorporates the latter in its entirety, added by the descriptive term “invest” which clearly refers to Complainant’s activities. Moreover, Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since (1) Complainant’s BELFIUS trademark registrations clearly predate Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, (2) Respondent is in no way associated with Complainant and has not been licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s BELFIUS trademark as a domain name or in any other way, and (3) Respondent seems to run an illegal commercial activity through the disputed domain name by offering investing services without deposing of the necessary authorization for such activities. Finally, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith since (1) Respondent had knowledge of Complainant and its BELFIUS trademark when registering the disputed domain name since the latter entirely incorporates the invented/fictional term “Belfius” combined with the term “invest” referring to Complainant’s activities, (2) Respondent offered illicit investment and loan services through the disputed domain name, and (3) Respondent provided incomplete contact details and so could not be traced. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Complainant carries the burden of proving: (i) That the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and Respondent’s default in the case at hand does not automatically result in a decision in favor of Complainant, however, paragraph 5(f) of the Rules provides that if Respondent does not submit a response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute solely based upon the Complaint. Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to submit a Response as it considers appropriate. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name The disputed domain name incorporates the BELFIUS trademark in its entirety. Numerous UDRP panels have recognized that incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is at least confusingly similar to a registered trademark (see e.g. PepsiCo, Inc. v. PEPSI, SRL (a/k/a P.E.P.S.I.) and EMS Computer Industry (a/k/a EMS),WIPO Case No. D2003-0696). Moreover, it has been held in many UDRP decisions and has become a consensus view among panelists (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8), that the addition of other terms (whether e.g. descriptive or otherwise) would not prevent the finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP. Accordingly, the addition of the descriptive term “invest”, which even points to Complainant’s core business, does not dispel the confusing similarity arising from the incorporation of Complainant’s BELFIUS trademark in the disputed domain name. Therefore, Complainant has established the first element under the Policy set forth by paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel is further convinced on the basis of Complainant’s undisputed contentions that Respondent has not made use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor has Respondent been commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor can it be found that Respondent has made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use thereof without intent for commercial gain. Respondent has neither been granted a license nor has it been otherwise authorized by Complainant to use its BELFIUS trademark, either as a domain name or in any other way. Also, there is no reason to believe that Respondent’s name somehow corresponds with the disputed domain name, and Respondent does not appear to have any trademark rights associated with the invented term “Belfius” on its own. Finally, the disputed domain name resolved at some point in the past to a commercially active website at “www.belfiusinvest.com” which offered financial services identical or at least confusingly similar to those offered by Complainant, and thereby prominently displayed as a logo the same invented word “Belfius” as it is reflected in Complainant’s BELFIUS trademark. Such use of the disputed domain name neither qualifies as bona fide nor as legitimate noncommercial or fair within the meaning of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. Accordingly, Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Now, the burden of production shifts to Respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating to the contrary (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1). Given that Respondent has defaulted, it has not met that burden. The Panel, therefore, finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that Complainant has also satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) and, thus, the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finally holds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith. The circumstances to this case leave no doubt that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant’s business and its rights in the BELFIUS trademark (notwithstanding the claimed reputation of this trademark beyond the territory of Belgium) when registering the disputed domain name and that the latter clearly is directed thereto. Moreover, using the disputed domain name to run a website offering services that are identical or at least confusingly similar to those of Complainant, and thereby prominently displaying as a logo the same invented word “Belfius” as it is reflected in Complainant’s BELFIUS trademark, is a clear indication that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its own website by creating a likelihood of confusing with Complainant’s BELFIUS trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website. Such circumstances are evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. In this context, the Panel has also noted that Respondent not only made use of a WhoIs Privacy Service in order to conceal its true identity, but also provided false or incomplete contact information in the WhoIs register for the disputed domain name since, according to the Center, the Written Notice on the Notification of Complaint dated July 6, 2020, could not be delivered. These facts at least throw a light on Respondent’s behavior which supports the Panel’s bad faith finding. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Complainant has also satisfied the third element under the Policy as set forth by paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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 Stephanie G. Hartung
(ii) That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) That the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Sole Panelist
Date: August 13, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy