The Complainant is Compagnie Générale de Location d’Equipements, France, represented by Valérie Perrichon - Avocats, France.
The Respondent is Whois Privacy, Private by Design, LLC, United States of America (“United States”) / Claudia Hermann, Benin. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 17, 2021. On March 17, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 17, 2021, 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 March 19, 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 amended Complaint on March 19, 2021. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 March 24, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 13, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 16, 2021. The Center appointed George R. F. Souter as the sole panelist in this matter on April 23, 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 is a French company, which uses its SEFIA trademark in connection with financial and leasing services. Details of French trademark registration number 184443011 of its SEFIA trademark, in classes 35 and 36, dating from April 4, 2018, have been supplied to the Panel by the Complainant. The disputed domain name was registered on January 11, 2021. The website at the disputed domain name offers services in the same field as the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its SEFIA trademark, containing its SEFIA trademark in its entirety, with the mere (hyphenated) addition of the descriptive or non-distinctive element “credit”. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, in particular that the Respondent has not been authorised by the Complainant to register or use the disputed domain name. The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. The Complainant has provided the Panel with details of use of the disputed domain name in connection with a website which offers financial services, and alleges that this use constitutes use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements that the Complainant must prove to merit a finding that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and The Panel is satisfied from the information provided that the Complainant has sufficient rights in its SEFIA trademark for the purposes of these proceedings. It is well-established in prior decisions under the UDRP, with which the Panel agrees, that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) is irrelevant when comparing a trademark with a disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel considers the gTLD “.org” to be irrelevant in the circumstances of the present case, and so finds. It is well-established in prior decisions under the Policy that the mere addition of a descriptive or non-distinctive element to a clearly recognizable trademark does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity. In the circumstances of the present case, the Complainant’s SEFIA trademark is instantly recognizable in the disputed domain name, and the mere addition of the word “credit”, which, in the Panel’s opinion, is clearly a descriptive or non-distinctive element in connection with financial services, does not, in the Panel’s opinion, avoid a finding of confusing similarity, and the Panel so finds. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests It is the consensus view of UDRP panels, with which the Panel agrees, that a prima facie case advanced by the complainant will generally be sufficient for the complainant to be deemed to have satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, provided the respondent does not come forward with evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and the complainant has presented a sufficient prima facie case to succeed under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. The Panel considers the submissions put forward by the Complainant as sufficient to be regarded as a prima facie case, and the Respondent did not take the opportunity to advance any claim of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name to rebut this prima facie case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel is of the view that the finding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name can lead, in appropriate circumstances, to a finding of registration of a disputed domain name in bad faith. The circumstance of the present case, in which the Panel regards it as self-evident that the Complainant’s SEFIA trademark was deliberately appropriated in the disputed domain name, are such that the Panel concludes that a finding of registration in bad faith is justified, and so finds. It is well-established in prior decisions under the Policy that the use of a domain name found to be confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, in connection with a website offering goods or services competing with those of the Complainant, as are the circumstances of the present case, constitutes use of that disputed domain name in bad faith. Accordingly, 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 George R. F. Souter
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Sole Panelist
Date: May 7, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy