The Complainant is Startup Group, France, represented by Selarl Marchais & Associés, France.
The Respondent is Whois Agent, Domain Protection Services, Inc., United States of America / Dominique Geffroy, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 6, 2020. On December 7, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 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 December 8, 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 amendment to the Complaint on December 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 December 11, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 31, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 4, 2021. The Center appointed Jane Seager as the sole panelist in this matter on January 11, 2021. 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 Established in 2016, the Complainant is a French company providing training and education services, specifically training methods to implement startup culture and dynamics in corporations and institutions. For use in connection with its training and education services, the Complainant is the owner of French Trademark Registration No. 4329510, STARTUP INSIDE, registered on May 5, 2017. The Complainant is the registrant of a number of domain names comprising its STARTUP INSIDE trademark, including From October 26, 2017 to late 2020, the Complainant was the registrant of the disputed domain name. In 2020, the Complainant failed to renew the disputed domain name. On November 1, 2020, the disputed domain name appears to have been registered by the Respondent using a privacy service. The disputed domain name previously resolved to a website (the “Respondent’s website”) that purported to provide services similar to those provided by the Complainant. The Respondent’s website featured the Complainant’s name and trademark STARTUP INSIDE in the same position and typeface as that used by the Complainant on its official website at “www.startupinside.com”. The Respondent’s website also listed the contact information of an affiliate of the Complainant. The disputed domain name has been used in connection with a fraudulent online scheme, whereby fictitious job opportunities were posted on legitimate classified-advertising websites. An email address created using the disputed domain name was subsequently used to engage with unsuspecting job applicants, who were requested to provide copies of their identification documents, insurance information, and banking details, which were in turn used to commit further fraudulent acts, including the unauthorized debiting of the applicants’ bank accounts. At the time of this decision, the disputed domain name resolves to a landing page stating that the website is under maintenance. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant asserts rights in the STARTUP INSIDE trademark. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant asserts that it has not authorized the Respondent to make use of its trademark, or to register the disputed domain name including its trademark. The Complainant submits that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, having registered the disputed domain name using a privacy service. The Complainant further argues that the Respondent is not making use of the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is the Respondent making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is being used to impersonate the Complainant in an effort to extract monies from unsuspecting Internet users. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name for the purposes of attracting Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion, or at least an impression of association, between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name, in a bad-faith effort to impersonate the Complainant. The Complainant submits that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that purports to be the website of an affiliate company of the Complainant, including listing that company’s contact information, together with the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to send fraudulent emails, amounts to use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to prevail, the Complainant must demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that it has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy: (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 was registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the STARTUP INSIDE trademark, the registration details of which are provided in the factual background section above. The disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s STARTUP INSIDE trademark in its entirety, altered only by the omission of the space between the words “startup” and “inside”, a space itself being incapable of representation in a domain name. The Panel finds the Complainant’s STARTUP INSIDE trademark to be immediately recognizable in the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests As described above, the disputed domain name has been used as part of a broader recruitment-fraud scheme, whereby the disputed domain name has been used to create an email address in order to impersonate the Complainant in the eyes of unsuspecting job applicants, with the ultimate purpose of extracting money from the applicants’ bank accounts. Prior UDRP panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., phishing, unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent; see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.13. See also Datamatics Global Services Limited, CIGNEX Datamatics Technologies Limited v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Avinash Gupta,WIPO Case No. D2017-2595: “The Complainants have submitted evidence of an employment offer letter, where the potential employee is required to submit scanned copies of personal documents to the email address offer@datamaticscignex. A list of such documents include: education certificates, employment and salary details, identity proof, and address proof among others. The Panel finds from the evidence submitted by the Complainants that the Respondent’s employment offer letter appears to be sent by the Second Complainant. Clearly, this shows an attempt to use the disputed domain name for purposes of phishing, namely, to lure people to provide sensitive information by disguising as a trustworthy entity. Use of the disputed domain name for a phishing scheme is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy.” The Panel finds that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the Respondent is making any legitimate use of the disputed domain name. None of the circumstances that may demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name as contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy applies. Rather, the disputed domain name appears to have been used for the illegitimate purpose of impersonating the Complainant in the furtherance of a fraudulent scheme. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant’s rights in the STARTUP INSIDE trademark predate the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name by over three years. The Panel notes that the Complainant was the prior registrant of the disputed domain name until late 2020, at which point the Complainant failed to renew the disputed domain name. The Panel infers from the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name, as described above, that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name opportunistically upon its expiry, with a view to using the disputed domain name for fraudulent purposes to mislead Internet users into believing that they were interacting with the Complainant. In the circumstances, the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name using a privacy service to hide the underlying registrant’s identity is further evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith. The Panel finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. As noted in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4, given that the use of a domain name for per se illegitimate activity such as phishing can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent, such behavior is manifestly considered evidence of bad faith. The Panel finds that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant as part of a broader online recruitment-fraud scheme is clear evidence of the Respondent’s bad-faith use of the disputed domain name. The fact that the disputed domain name no longer resolves to a website displaying substantive content does not alter the Panel’s findings in this regard. The Panel finds that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of 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 Jane Seager
Sole Panelist
Date: January 21, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy