The Complainant is Teleperformance SE, France, represented by Inlex IP Expertise, France.
The Respondent is Name Redacted1 . 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 5, 2020. On August 5, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On August 7, 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 7, 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 7, 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 10, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 30, 2020. The Center received email communications from a third party on August 12 and 13, 2020, highlighting an identity theft. The Center informed the Parties of the latter on August 19, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 31, 2020. The Center appointed Michael D. Cover as the sole panelist in this matter on September 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 The Complainant is a company registered at the Trade and Company Register of Paris under No. 301 292 702 as of October 3, 1989 and having its head office in France. The Complainant is a global leader in outsourced customer experience management as set out on the Complainant’s website at “www.teleperformance.com”. The Complainant is the proprietor of several registered trademarks and domain names, which consist of or include the element TELEPERFORMANCE, including: European Union Trade Mark No. 003460524, registered on September 26, 2005; and, International Trademark Registration No. 507250, registered on September 4, 1986. The Complainant’s domain name registrations include The Disputed Domain Name was registered on October 28, 2019. The Disputed Domain Name does not currently resolve to an active page. As already noted, the Center received information relating to an identity theft on August 12 and 13, 2020. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Identical or Confusingly Similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights The Complainant has set out in the Complaint its trademark registrations which consist of or include the element TELEPERFORMANCE and also notes that all the domain names of the Complainant that are set out in Complaint are duly used by the Complainant and automatically redirect to one of the Complainant’s official websites. The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name reproduces in its entirety the sign TELEPERFORMANCE, for which the Complainant owns the registered trademarks and domain names set out by the Complainant in the Complaint. The Complainant submits that, as a result, there is a risk of confusion and a risk of association for consumers and that Internet users will perceive the Disputed Domain Name is an official domain name of the Complainant. The Complainant cites in support of its contentions two UDRP decisions, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. Gregory Wilson/ Infotech Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2017-0956, where the panel held that the addition of the element “-job” does nothing to dispel the potential for confusion, and Newegg Inc. v. Nicole Alex and Alexander Ethan,WIPO Case No. D2019-2740, where the panel came to a similar conclusion. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant notes that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to an inactive error page. The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name is not used by the Respondent to offer bona fide goods and services. The Complainant cites in support two UDRP decisions, including Natixis v. Mistoul Juliette,WIPO Case No. D2017-2058, where the panel decided that a domain name which resolves to an error page does not correspond to a bona fide offering of goods or services nor to a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of that domain name. The Complainant also submits that the Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name as an identifier for an individual, business, company, or organization and that the Respondent is not known by the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant also notes that the Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name in a legitimate noncommercial or fair manner, without intent for commercial gain. The Complainant draws the Panel’s attention to the updated information on the details of the registrant of the Disputed Domain Name and that this further demonstrates that the Respondent is not commonly known under the name “teleperformance”, does not make any use of a business name including the name “teleperformance” and has no rights in the term “teleperformance”. The Complainant concludes that there is no evidence to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interest of the Respondent in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant first states that the Respondent knew or should have known about the existence of the Complainant’s TELEPERFORMANCE trademarks and domain names, which could readily have been found through simple searches. The Complainant also emphasizes that its TELEPEROFORMANCE trademarks and domain names are well-known and that the choice of Disputed Domain Name on the part of the Respondent cannot have been incidental. The Complainant continues that it appears that the registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name amounts to typosquatting and has been primarily to disrupt the business of the Complainant and should be considered as an identity theft. The Complainant notes that, on several occasions, emails appear to have been sent from an email address associated with the Disputed Domain Name impersonating an employee of the Complainant and perpetrating a fraud on unsuspecting Internet users. Such emails are exhibited as part of the Complaint. The Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. The Center, however, received email communications from a third party on August 12 and 13, 2020, highlighting an identity theft. 6. Discussion and Findings The Complainant must establish on the balance of probabilities that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, and the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel accepts that the Complainant has established registered rights in its trademark TELEPERFORMANCE. The registrations of both the Complainant’s registered trademarks and domain names predate the registration of the Disputed Domain Name by a considerable margin. The Panel also accepts that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TELEPERFORMANCE trademark. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s TELEPERFORMANCE trademark in its entirety. In assessing confusing similarity, it is well established that the incorporation of a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), such as “.org”, does avoid a finding of confusing similarity to a complainant’s trademark. The same applies to a descriptive term, such as “jobs”, which as established by the UDRP decisions cited by the Complainant and also section 1.11 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). The Panel accordingly decides that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark TELEPERFORMANCE, in which it has rights and that the provisions of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel accepts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. There is no suggestion or evidence that the Complainant has licensed the Respondent to use its TELEPERFORMANCE trademark. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to an error page and has been used in connection with the sending of fraudulent email communications impersonating an employee of the Complainant. The Panel accordingly decides that the burden of production then passes to the Respondent, the Complainant having made out a prima facie case. The Respondent has failed to discharge that burden, including by failing to respond to the Complaint. In particular, the Respondent has not demonstrated use or demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services without intent for commercial gain or to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the TELEPERFORMANCE trademark of the Complainant nor that the Respondent has been commonly-known by the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel accordingly finds that the provisions of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy have been satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel accepts that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel accepts that it is a reasonable inference that the Respondent was aware or, at the least, should have been aware of the TELEPERFORMANCE trademark of the Complainant, which was registered well before the registration of the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel also accepts that the Disputed Domain Name has been used in connection with certain fraudulent emails primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor and also intentionally to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s TELEPERFORMANCE trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. The Panel accordingly decides that the provisions of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy have been met. 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 Michael D. Cover 1 Respondent appears to have used the name of a third party when registering the Disputed Domain Name
Sole Panelist
Date: September 30, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy