The Complainant is Techint Compañía Técnica Internacional Sociedad Anónima Comercial e Industrial, Argentina, represented by G. Breuer, Argentina.
The Respondent is Deborah Braem, s.ramirez enterprises, 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 December 10, 2020. On December 10, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 11, 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 Center verified that 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 21, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 10, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 15, 2021. The Center appointed Benjamin Fontaine as the sole panelist in this matter on February 3, 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 Originally an engineering company created in Italy and Argentina in 1945, the Complainant has become a regional and world leader in many areas, including steel making, building of infrastructures, design and assembly of industrial plants, oil and gas exploration and production, etc. The Complainant has operated in particular in Mexico for 70 years. In this country, it employs approximately 16,000 employees and realizes an annual turnover of several billion USD. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations over the word TECHINT, alone or with a logo. In particular in Mexico, the Complainant owns the trademarks TECHINT (word) No. 613680 registered on June 15, 1999, No. 572777 registered on March 24, 1998, and No. 575807 registered on March 30, 1998. The disputed domain name was registered on August 10, 2020. That same day, several email addresses were created, impersonating employees of the Complainant. These email addresses were used to exchange correspondence with a business partner of the Complainant, also on the same day and later on, on several occasions. These emails contained the full name, addresses, and references of real employees of the Complainant, and were apparent continuations of prior email exchanges in which the real emails of the employees were used. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The arguments put forward in the Complaint can be summarized as follows: The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the numerous trademarks for TECHINT, which it holds. It highlights in particular that the word “techint” is arbitrary and therefore distinctive, both in English and Spanish. The Complainant also claims that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. This individual does not own trademark rights over “techint”. What is more, the Respondent uses the disputed domain name for fraudulent activities, which excludes any possibility of bona fide offering of goods or services. Finally, the Complainant also claims that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith, namely for phishing purposes. The Respondent impersonated several of the Complainant’s employees by creating and using very similar email addresses, thereby interfering in the Complainant’s relationship with a business partner. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant prove all of the following three elements in order to be successful in these proceedings: (i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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 names; and (iii) the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant, under the first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, needs to establish that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which it has rights. It is generally accepted that the test of confusing similarity is reasonably straightforward and functions primarily as a standing requirement. As indicated in WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7, “While each case is judged on its own merits, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing.” This test is satisfied here, as the disputed domain name reproduces, identically and in first position, the trademark TECHINT of the Complainant. This trademark is immediately perceptible, as it is placed in first position and is separated from the following element “mx” by a hyphen. The addition of the term “-mx” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark TECHINT. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and that the first element of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Once such a prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. In this case, the Complainant has sufficiently argued that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to register and use the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. What is more, the operation of a fraudulent phishing scheme under the disputed domain name cannot amount to fair use. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In order to prevail under the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must demonstrate that the disputed domain name has been registered and are being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists a number of circumstances, which, without limitation, are deemed to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. These are: (i) circumstances indicating that [a respondent has] registered or acquired a disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name to the complainant or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [the respondent’s] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or (ii) [the respondent has] registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the complainant from reflecting the complainant’s trade mark or service mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) [the respondent has] registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the disputed domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location. In this case, the evidence provided for by the Complainant speaks for itself. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name fraudulently for phishing purposes: on August 10, 2020 it registered a domain name which does not only reproduce the Complainant’s trademark, but also adopts a similar structure as the domain name used for its activities in Mexico. The Complainant uses the domain name The Respondent has therefore registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the third criteria element set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is also satisfied. 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 Benjamin Fontaine
Sole Panelist
Date: February 17, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy