The Complainant is AXA SA, France, represented by Selarl Candé - Blanchard - Ducamp, France.
The Respondent is Privacy Administrator, Anonymize, Inc., United States of America (“United States”); Gary Cookie, United States; Lui King, United States; Whois Privacy, Private by Design, LLC, United States / Danny Smith, United Kingdom; Host Master, 1337 Services LLC, Saint Kitts and Nevis; Von D Johnson, United States; WhoisSecure, United States / Gary Cooper, Panama. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain names The disputed domain names The disputed domain names The disputed domain names The disputed domain name The disputed domain name The disputed domain names The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 21, 2021. On January 21, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars requests for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On January 21, 22, and 23, 2021, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification responses disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 20, 2021 providing the registrants 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 March 23, 2021. 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”). On March 30, 2021, the Complainant requested suspension of the proceedings to explore settlement for a single domain name no longer in dispute. On March 31, 2021, the Center suspended the proceedings. On June 11, 2021, the Center issued a partial Notification of Dismissal relating to a single domain name no longer in dispute. On June 11, 2021, the Center reinstituted the proceedings relating to the remaining disputed domain names. In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 11, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 1, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 4, 2021. The Center appointed Marilena Comanescu as the sole panelist in this matter on August 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 The Complainant AXA SA is the holding company of the AXA Group which is a Fench company with a history dating back to the 18th century. After a succesion of mergers, acquisitions and name changes, the trademark AXA was introduced in 1985. Since 1988 AXA is traded on the Paris Stock Exchange and in 1996 it becomes listed on New York Stock Exchange. With 160,000 employees around the world and serving 108 million customers in 57 countries, the Complainant is one of the world leaders in insurance, saving, and asset management sector. The Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations for AXA in many jurisdictions worldwide, such as: - the International Trademark registration number 490030 for the mark AXA (word), filed on December 5, 1984, and covering services in Nice classes 35, 36, 39; and - the European Union Trade Mark registration number 373894 for the mark AXA (with design), filed on August 28, 1996 and registered on July 29, 1998, and covering services in Nice classes 35, 36. The Complainant holds domain names incorporating the mark AXA, such as The disputed domain names were registered as follows: - - - - - - - - - According to the information provided by the Registrars, the disputed domain names At the time of filing the Complaint, according to evidence provided in Annexes 19-35 and 60-64 to the Complaint, none of the disputed domain names was used in relation to an active website but they were used for a scam consisting of sending of prospecting emails to potential clients pretending to be AXA and offering to make financial investments. The evidence provided as Annexes 61-64 to the Complaint contains an email sent to the potential client by the Respondent using the email address corresponding to the disputed domain name Before commencing these proceeding, on November 26, 2020, the Complainant send Cease and Desist letters to the Respondent. No response was received. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its well-known AXA trademark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain names to it. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In view of the absence of a Response, the discussion and findings will be based upon the contentions in the Complaint and any reasonable position that can be attributable to the Respondent. Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant can only succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy if the following circumstances are met: (i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and (iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. The Panel will further analyze the potential concurrence of the above circumstances. A. Preliminary Procedural Issue. Consolidation of Multiple Disputed Domain Names and Respondents According to the provisions of paragraph 10(e) of the Rules, the Panel has the power to decide the consolidation of multiple domain names disputes. Further, paragraph 3(c) of the UDRP Rules provides that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. In the present case, there are sixteen disputed domain names, and apparently seven Respondents. According to the information provided by the Registrar, the disputed domain names The present disputed domain names: (i) were created in a similar manner: the trademark AXA together with descriptive terms closely related to the Complainant’s business; (ii) some of the disputed domain names were registered under the same name and/or with the same registrar; (iii) some of the disputed domain names have the same IP address and/or the same name server; (iv) are registered and/or updated in the same day or close days – all between October and December 2020; and (iv) were used in a similar manner, none of them was used in relation to an active website. The Respondent had the opportunity to comment on the consolidation request made by the Complainant but it chose to remain silent. For the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are subject to common control and it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to decide the consolidation of multiple disputed domain names and the Respondents in the present procedure. See also section 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). B. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant holds rights in the AXA trademark. The disputed domain names incorporate the trademark AXA in its entirety with additional terms and/or a hyphen. However, such additions do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity as the Complainant’s trademark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain names. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. It is well established in decisions under the UDRP that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) (e.g.,”.com”, “.net”, “.info”, “.shop”) may typically be disregarded for the purposes of consideration of confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name. See section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Given the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark AXA, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). C. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant asserts that the Respondent does not hold any trademark rights, license, or authorization whatsoever to use the mark AXA, that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, and that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain names in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use or a bona fide offering of goods or services. Under the Policy, “where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element”. See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. The Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions and has not come forward with relevant evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case. There is nothing in the record suggesting that the Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain names or that the Respondent made a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial use under the disputed domain names. The Respondent is keeping the disputed domain names inactive and, according to the evidence in the Complaint, is using these for scamming purposes. UDRP panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (such phishing, distributing malware, other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. See section 2.13 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. For these reasons, the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy is established, and the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii). D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant has held trademark rights in AXA since at least 1984. This Panel accepts the Complainant’s evidence that the AXA trademark is well-known in its field. See also AXA SA vs Frank van,WIPO Case No. D2014-0863, and AXA SA v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Daniel Blondela,WIPO Case No. D2020-1557. The disputed domain names were created in 2020 and incorporate the Complainant’s mark in its entirety together with descriptive terms closely related to Complainant’s business, such: “aml” (the acronym from “Anti-Money Laundering”), “query”, “new query”, “client”, “client service”, “doc” (from “document”), “documents”, “private”, and “retail”. Alos, given the fact that the mark is well-known and distinctive, the Panel finds that it is impossible to believe that the Respondent chose to register the disputed domain names randomly with no knowledge of the mark. From the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith, knowing the Complainant and targeting its trademark. Paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy provides a circumstance of bad faith registration and use when the respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct. Registering sixteen domain names reflecting Complainant’s trademark can be considered a pattern of abusive conduct and registration of the disputed domain names in bad faith. At the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain names did not resolve to an active website. The circumstances in the present case including, inter alia, the reputation of the Complainant’s AXA trademark and the implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain name may be put, support a finding of bad faith. See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. According to the evidence provided in the Complaint and unrefuted by the Respondent, prior to the present proceeding, the Respondent was using the disputed domain names to send email communications for phishing and other fraudulent purposes in an attempt to obtain financial gain from third parties, impersonating the Complainant. This is a classic phishing scheme and establishes bad faith use and registration. UDRP panels have consistently held that the use of a domain name other than to host a website may constitute bad faith. Such purposes include sending email, phishing, identity theft, or malware distribution. Many of such cases, as well as the present case, involve the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to send deceptive emails to obtain sensitive or confidential personal information form prospective clients or to solicit payment of fraudulent invoices by the complainant’s actual or prospective customers. See section 3.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. The Respondent did not participate in the present proceedings in order to put forward any arguments in its favor. Previous UDRP panels have found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a third party’s well-known trademark can, by itself, constitute a presumption of bad faith for the purpose of Policy. See section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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 names Marilena Comănescu
Sole Panelist
Date: August 18, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy