The Complainant is Compagnie Générale De Location D’Equipements, France, represented by Valérie Perrichon - Avocats, France.
The Respondent is Louis Finon, Niger. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 3, 2020. On November 3, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 4, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 10, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 30, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 1, 2020. The Center appointed Fabrizio Bedarida as the sole panelist in this matter on December 9, 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 public limited company incorporated under the laws of France. The SEFIA trademark is duly used by the Complainant’s subsidiary, the SEFIA company, to designate financial and leasing services. The Complainant has proven to have rights in the French SEFIA Trademark, No. 184443011 registered on April 4, 2018. The disputed domain name was registered on July 18, 2020 and currently does not resolve to an active website. According to the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers financial and leasing services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant claims that: (a) The disputed domain name wholly incorporates and is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; (b) the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate rights in the disputed domain name; and (c) the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, including by reproducing the Complainant’s subsidiary’s name and physical address under the “CONTACT” section of the website at the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established rights in the SEFIA trademark. The disputed domain name consists of the SEFIA mark with the mere addition of the terms “inter” and “credit”, which are descriptive of the field of activity of the Complainant. The Panel agrees with the Complainant’s assertion that the addition of these terms, “inter” and “credit”, does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity with the SEFIA trademark. In fact, it has already been held by previous UDRP panels that the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between a domain name and a complainant’s trademark. Indeed, the Complainant’s trademark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests This Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no connection to or affiliation with the Complainant, and the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use or register any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademarks. The Respondent does not appear to make any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor any use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. In addition, the Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the disputed domain name or by a similar name. Moreover, the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions to claim any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Based on the evidence put forward by the Complainant, the Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark registrations and rights to the SEFIA mark when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. In fact, this Panel agrees with the Complainant that, considering that the disputed domain name is the result of the combination of “SEFIA”, the Complainant’s trademark, and the terms “inter credit”, which describe the Complainant’s business, the choice to register the disputed domain name cannot be a coincidence. This is even more true considering that the Respondent has reproduced the Complainant’s subsidiary’s name and physical address under the “CONTACT” section of the website at the disputed domain name. To conclude, this Panel agrees with the Complainant’s assertion that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users and to mislead them into thinking that the disputed domain name belongs to the French company SEFIA, the ultimate purpose being to defraud the Complainant’s potential customers. In addition, it appears from the report (i.e., bad address) received by the Center from the courier that attempted to deliver the Written Notice to the Respondent, that the Respondent has provided an incorrect or at least not up-to-date address. This fact, on the balance of probabilities, constitutes further inference of the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. Finally, the Respondent has not responded to, let alone denied, the assertions of bad faith made by the Complainant in this proceeding. It is reasonable to assume that if the Respondent had legitimate purposes for registering and using the disputed domain name then the Respondent would have responded. Accordingly, the Panel finds on the basis of the evidence presented, that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Therefore, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 Fabrizio Bedarida
Sole Panelist
Date: December 23, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy