The Complainant is Mazars, Belgium, represented by TESLA Avocats, France.
The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1249245923, Canada / Name Redacted. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name, The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 5, 2021. On February 8, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 9, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 9, 2021 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 February 9, 2021, agreeing to the addition of the registrant as a second Respondent, but requesting the redaction of the name of the registrant stating that he is an employee of the Complainant who has been the victim of identity theft. 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 February 11, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 3, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 9, 2021. The Center appointed Tony Willoughby as the sole panelist in this matter on March 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. The invitation to the Complainant to file an amendment to the Complaint stemmed from the fact that the Domain Name was registered in the name of a privacy service. In response to the Center’s registrar verification request, the Registrar disclosed the name and address of the entity in whose name the Domain Name had been registered. The amended Complaint adds the underlying registrant as a Respondent. However, the name used by the registrant of the Domain Name is the name of someone associated with the Complainant who could not sensibly have been the registrant. In light of what appears to the Panel to be a clear case of identity theft, the Panel has redacted the second Respondent’s name from this decision, believing it to be inappropriate for a person unconnected with registration or use of the Domain Name to be named a respondent in the case. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the Domain Name, which includes the name of the second Respondent. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding, and has indicated Annex 1 to this decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST‑12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted,WIPO Case No. D2009-1788. In this decision all references to the “Respondent” are references to the unknown entity responsible for the registration and use of the Domain Name. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is an international tax, audit and advisory consultancy, which has traded under the Mazars name since its incorporation 75 years ago. It is the registered proprietor of numerous trade mark registrations covering the “Mazars” name including, by way of example, European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 003798402 MAZARS (word) registered on July 19, 2005 (application filed on April 27, 2004) for a variety of services in classes 35, 36, 41 and 42. The Domain Name was registered on January 27, 2021. It is not connected to an active website. The Complainant has produced evidence to demonstrate that shortly after registering the Domain Name the Respondent, purporting to be an employee of the Complainant, sent invoices to clients of the Complainant and using an email address featuring the Domain Name. The invoices replicate the Complainant’s invoice format featuring its MAZARS trade mark and, at the foot, formal information seemingly appropriate to the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MAZARS trade mark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered the Domain Name for the purpose for which it is being used, namely to defraud clients of the Complainant by issuing invoices purporting to come from the Complainant, but which in fact come from the Respondent who is not associated with the Complainant. The Complainant points out that the “cab” prefix in the Domain Name is a commonly used abbreviation for the French word “cabinet”, meaning “office”. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. General According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that: (i) the Domain Name is 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 Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Domain Name comprises the word “cab”, the Complainant’s MAZARS registered trade mark (with the addition of a hyphen between “cab” and “mazars”) and the “.com” generic Top Level Domain identifier. The Domain Name comprises the word “cab”, the Complainant’s MAZARS registered trade mark (with the addition of a hyphen between “cab” and “mazars”) and the “.com” generic Top Level Domain identifier. Section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) explains the test for identity or confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy and includes the following passage: “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.” The Panel finds that the Complainant’s registered trade mark is readily recognizable in the Domain Name and, consequently, that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests As indicated in section 4 above, the Complainant has produced evidence to demonstrate that the Respondent is using the Domain Name to impersonate the Complainant with a view to defrauding the Complainant’s clients by sending them fraudulent invoices purporting to come from the Complainant. The Complainant has made out a prima facie case under this element of the Policy, in other words a case calling for an answer from the Respondent. The Respondent has not answered the Complainant’s contentions. The Panel finds it inconceivable that the Respondent could have an answer. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant’s contentions are well-founded and that the Respondent registered the Domain Name for the purpose for which it is using it, namely to perpetrate a fraud on the Complainant’s client’s, by impersonating the Complainant. An essential element of the fraud is the Domain Name, which by its very nature is likely to be regarded by recipients of emails featuring it in the sender’s email address as being a domain name of the Complainant. The fact that the fraudulent emails were sent out by the Respondent within days of registration of the Domain Name make it clear that the Respondent registered the Domain Name for that fraudulent purpose. The Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 Domain Name Tony Willoughby
Sole Panelist
Date: March 12, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy