The Complainant is Etablissementen Franz Colruyt, Naamloze Vennootschap, Belgium, represented by Prioux Culot + Partners, Belgium.
The Respondent is Redacted for Privacy / Michael Hannart, Belgium. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 30, 2020. On July 30, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On August 3, 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 August 17, 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 August 20, 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 August 21, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 10, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 14, 2020. The Center appointed Flip Jan Claude Petillion as the sole panelist in this matter on September 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, Etablissementen Franz Colruyt, operates one of Belgium’s largest supermarket chains with almost 30,000 employees. The Complainant invokes the following trademark registrations for COLRUYT: - COLRUYT, European Union Trade Mark (EUTM) No. 009856733 (word mark) registered on October 7, 2011 in classes 16, 35 and 39; - COLRUYT, EUTM No. 008545774 (figurative mark) registered on October 7, 2010 in classes 16, 35 and 39; The Disputed Domain Name was registered on December 12, 2019. The Disputed Domain Name appears to resolve to a standard parking page operated by the Registrar. The Complainant provides evidence of an email sent to third parties from an email address linked to the Disputed Domain Name. The signature of this email includes the Complainant’s COLRUYT mark and logo, its registered address and VAT number, and the name of a (former) employee of the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant considers the Disputed Domain Name to be confusingly similar to a trademark in which it claims to have rights. The Complainant further claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent has not used the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a legitimate use. Also, according to the Complainant, the Respondent has not been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name and is in no way affiliated with the Complainant. Finally, the Complainant claims that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant claims that the Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name primarily to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15 of the Rules provides that the Panel is to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. The onus is on the Complainant to make out its case and it is apparent, both from the terms of the Policy and the decisions of past UDRP panels, that the Complainant must show that all three elements set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been established before any order can be made to transfer the Disputed Domain Name. As the UDRP proceedings are administrative, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. Thus, for the Complainant to succeed it must prove, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, that: (i) the Disputed Domain Name is 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 Name; and (iii) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel will therefore deal with each of these requirements. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar To prove this element, the Complainant must first establish that there is a trademark or service mark in which it has rights. The Complainant has clearly established that it has trademarks rights in the sign COLRUYT. The Complainant’s COLRUYT trademarks have been registered and extensively used in connection to its retail business. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s COLRUYT trademark in its entirety, simply preceding it with the name “franz” and a hyphen. As stated at section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name, the addition of other (descriptive) terms would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Additionally, it is well established that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” may be disregarded when considering whether the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. In light of the above, the Panel considers the Disputed Domain Name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s COLRUYT trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of establishing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. As established by previous UDRP panels, it is sufficient for the Complainant to make a prima facie showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name in order to place the burden of production on the Respondent (see section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). The Panel observes that the Respondent has not apparently been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name and that the Respondent does not seem to have acquired trademark or service mark rights. According to the information provided by the Registrar, the Respondent is “Michael Hannart”. The Respondent’s use and registration of the Disputed Domain Name was not authorized by the Complainant. There are no indications that a connection between the Complainant and the Respondent exists or existed. Where a domain name consists of a trademark plus an additional term, UDRP panels have largely held that such composition cannot constitute fair use if it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner (see section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s COLRUYT trademark and adds the name “franz”, which is the first name of the Complainant’s founder, Franz Colruyt. This first name is also taken up in the Complainant’s company name and can thus be directly linked to the Complainant and its retail business. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant and cannot constitute fair use. Beyond looking at the domain name and the nature of any additional terms appended to it, UDRP panels assess whether the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the absence of a response, support a fair use or not (see sections 2.5.2 and 2.5.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). The Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. While the Disputed Domain Name resolved to a parking page, the Respondent has actively used an email address connected to the Disputed Domain Name to impersonate a person linked to the Complainant with a clear intent to mislead third parties in relation to the purchase of products. The signature in the email mentions the Complainant’s COLRUYT mark and logo, its registered address and VAT number, and the name of a (former) employee of the Complainant. Evidently, such use cannot be considered a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. Previous UDRP panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., 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 (see section 2.13 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). The Respondent had the opportunity to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests but did not do so. In the absence of a Response from the Respondent, the prima facie case established by the Complainant has not been rebutted. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. In light of the above, the Complainant succeeds on the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the Disputed Domain Name was registered in bad faith and that it is being used in bad faith (see section 4.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, for example, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 and Control Techniques Limited v. Lektronix Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2006-1052). Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exclusive list of factors, any one of which may demonstrate bad faith. Among these factors demonstrating bad faith registration and use is the use of a domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a 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 website or location or of a product or service on the website or location. In the present case, it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant and its trademark rights when it registered the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant provides a copy of an email sent from an address connected to the Disputed Domain Name. The signature of the email not only mentions the Complainant’s registered address, VAT number, and the name of a (former) employee of the Complainant, it also reproduces the Complainant’s mark and logo. Considering the distinctive and well-known character of the Complainant’s COLRUYT trademark in Belgium where the Respondent is located, the Respondent must have had knowledge of the Complainant’s rights at the time of registering the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent’s awareness of the Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of registration indicates bad faith (see Red Bull GmbH v. Credit du Léman SA, Jean-Denis Deletraz,WIPO Case No. D2011-2209; BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation v. Serena, Axel,WIPO Case No. D2006-0007). The Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant’s trademark has a strong reputation, which makes it difficult to conceive any plausible legitimate use of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent. Further, the Respondent has used an email address connected to the Disputed Domain Name to impersonate a representative of the Complainant. The Panel finds that the Respondent’s use of this email address associated with the Disputed Domain Name constitutes bad faith (see section 3.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). In addition, the Complainant provided evidence of the fact that the Respondent engaged in a clear pattern of abusive registrations that prevent trademark holders from reflecting their trademarks in domain names. In the Panel’s view, this is a further indication of the Respondent’s bad faith (see section 3.1.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). By failing to respond to the Complaint, the Respondent did not take any initiative to contest the foregoing. Pursuant to paragraph 14 of the Rules, the Panel may draw the conclusions it considers appropriate. Therefore, the Panel finds that, on the balance of probabilities, it is sufficiently shown that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. In light of the above, the Complainant also succeeds on the third and last element 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 Flip Jan Claude Petillion
Sole Panelist
Date: October 1, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy