The Complainant is BOLLORE SE, France, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1247853759, Canada / Angela Chaney, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 4, 2020. On August 4, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 5, 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 6, 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 6, 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 7, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 27, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 28, 2020. The Center appointed Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira as the sole panelist in this matter on September 7, 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 exists for almost 200 years – it was created in 1822 – and is one of the largest companies in the world, specialized in transportation and, communication and media, electricity storage and solutions. The Complainant is operative in more than 100 countries worldwide, with 84,000 employees throughout the world. The subsidiary of the Complainant, BOLLORE LOGISTICS, is a worldwide transport and logistics company. The Complainant owns a large number of registrations for marks formed by the name BOLLORÉ LOGISTICS throughout the world, among which the international registration n° 1025892, from July 31, 2009, and registration n° 1302823, registered since January 27, 2016, both for BOLLORÉ LOGISTICS. The Complainant also owns the domain name The disputed domain name was registered on August 1, 2020. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website and has been set up with MX records. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant is the owner of registrations worldwide for the mark BOLLORÉ LOGISTICS, which has been in use worldwide for over decades. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name, which incorporates the trademark BOLLORÉ LOGISTICS, registered by the Complainant. As stated by the documents presented, the registration and use of the trademark BOLLORÉ LOGISTICS predate the registration of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name does not direct to an active website. The disputed domain name, though, has apparently been used for messages, as it has been set up with a MX record. In sum, the Complainant alleges that the registration and use of the disputed domain name is intentional to mislead Internet users by leading them to phishing scams, that it is clear that the Respondent has no rights in the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings The Policy, in its paragraph 4(a), determines that three elements must be presented and duly proven by a complainant to obtain relief. These elements are: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name is, indeed, confusingly similar to the BOLLORÉ LOGISTICS trademark, as the latter is, minus the accent on the letter “e”, entirely incorporated in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has presented consistent evidence of ownership of the trademark BOLLORÉ LOGISTICS in jurisdictions throughout the world, by presenting international registrations for it, as well as comprehensive evidence of the use of the trademark. The use of the trademark with the addition of the letters “ac” in the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the mark BOLLORÉ LOGISTICS, which is reproduced in its entirety with the exception of the accent on the letter “e”. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). Given the above, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademark of the Complainant. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Given the clear evidence that the trademark BOLLORÉ LOGISTICS is registered in the Complainant’s name and is widely known as identifying the Complainant’s activities, and that the Complainant has not licensed this to the Respondent, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In the absence of a Response, the Respondent has not rebutted such prima facie case. The Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name - the Respondent is not making any direct use of the disputed domain name, but merely using it as a parking space. Moreover, the disputed domain name carries a high risk of implied affiliation. See section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. The Panel, thus, finds for the Complainant under the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Given the circumstances of this case, the facts outlined above can evidence the Respondent’s bad faith in the registration and use of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was registered to clearly mislead the consumers. The Respondent intended to give an overall impression that the disputed domain name is associated with the Complainant. Moreover, the Panel accepts that the disputed domain name may be making use of the Complainant’s renowned trademark for unlawful purposes, as it set up with a MX record. The current passive holding of the disputed domain name is also evidence of bad faith from 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 name Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira
Sole Panelist
Date: September 21, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy