Complainant is Union InVivo, France, represented by Fidal, France.
Respondent is Proxy Protection LLC, United States of America (“United States”), / Courtney Toney, 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 October 23, 2020. On October 23, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 23, 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 October 26, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on November 10, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 November 11, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 1, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on December 3, 2020. The Center appointed Andrea Mondini as the sole panelist in this matter on December 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 Complainant, Union InVivo, is a French federation of cooperatives created in 2001. According to Complainant, it is France’s leading agricultural cooperative group, with a network of 201 cooperatives and approximately 5,500 employees. Complainant owns, inter alia, the following trademarks: International Trademark Registration No. 1534420, INVIVO (logo), filed on December 10, 2019, covering goods and services in classes 1, 5, 9, 31, 33, 35, 36, 42, 43 and 44, and designating numerous countries, including the United States. European Union Trademark No. 018161217, INVIVO (logo) filed on December 4, 2019, covering goods and services in numerous classes. Complainant also owns numerous domain names containing its mark INVIVO plus the term “group”, inter alia, The disputed domain name was registered on October 22, 2020. The disputed domain name resolves to a parking website, and it has been used to send fraudulent emails. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends as follows: The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the INVIVO trademark in which Complainant has rights, because the distinctive element “inviivo” with double letter “i” is nearly identical to Complainant’s trademark. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The mark INVIVO is associated with Complainant, since it has been used to identify the goods and services rendered by Complainant for years. There is no business or legal relationship between Complainant and Respondent. Respondent has not been authorized by Complainant to use the mark INVIVO. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, with the aim of taking advantage of the reputation of Complainant’s trademark INVIVO. Notably, the disputed domain name has been used to send fraudulent emails, misusing the identity of Complainant’s CEO to request Complainant’s employees to transfer money to an account indicated by the sender of such fake emails. It is thus obvious that Respondent had knowledge of both Complainant and its trademark at the time it registered the disputed domain name, and that it used the disputed domain name in bad faith to send fraudulent emails. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, a complainant must establish each of the following elements: (i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the 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 Panel is satisfied that Complainant owns registrations for its INVIVO marks in the European Union and in the United States. See section 4 above. The Panel notes that in the disputed domain name the INVIVO mark is incorporated in its entirety with a clear typo (double letter “i”), to which a hyphen and the term “group” are added. Considering that the distinctive element in the disputed domain name is Complainant’s mark INVIVO, such misspelling and additions do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8 For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark INVIVO. The first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests A previous panel has held, and this Panel agrees, that the Invivo Group, i.e. Complainant, is well-known in France in respect of agricultural products and services in general (see Union InVivo v. Kim Dushinski,WIPO Case No. D2020-1214). Complainant states it has no relationship of any kind with Respondent, and the Panel does not see any contrary evidence on the casefile. Clearly, the use of the disputed domain name to send fraudulent emails is neither a bona fide use pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers presumably looking for Complainant, according to Policy, paragraph 4(c)(iii). In the view of the Panel, Complainant has succeeded in raising a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. For its part, Respondent failed to provide any explanations as to any rights or legitimate interests. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Complainant, which was created in 2001 as a result of the merger of two important groups of French agricultural cooperatives, has shown to the satisfaction of the Panel that it owns a registration for the INVIVO mark since 2001, i.e., over 18 years before the registration of the disputed domain name. See section 4 above. It is more likely than not that Respondent, noticing that Complainant had already registered the As shown above, the disputed domain name has been used to send fraudulent emails, misusing the identity of Complainant’s CEO to request Complainant’s employees to transfer money to an account indicated by the sender of such fake emails. This is a clear use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel thus finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has 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 Andrea Mondini
Sole Panelist
Date: December 10, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy