The Complainant is G4S Plc., United Kingdom (“UK”), represented by SafeNames Ltd., UK.
The Respondent is Raquel Satterfield, 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 April 26, 2021. On April 26, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 27, 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 April 27. 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 April 28, 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 April 29, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 19, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 20, 2021. The Center appointed Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira as the sole panelist in this matter on May 25, 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 British security services company headquartered in London, UK. The Complainant operates in several countries and can trace its history back to the 1901. The Complainant has officially been known as “G4S” since 2004, resulting from the merger of Group 4 Falck and Securicor. The Complainant renders security services under the mark G4S worldwide, divided in four main groups, namely security solutions, cash solutions, consulting services and care and justice services. It is currently present in 85 countries and employs over 530,000 people. The Complainant and its subsidiaries have been rendering their services under the G4S mark in all kinds of medias, including promoting its services on the Internet for several years. The Complainant’s main website can be found at “www.g4s.com”. Proof of the renown, services rendered, and worldwide revenue were presented as annexes 4 to 6 of the Complaint. The Complainant owns several registrations and applications for the G4S trademark, which has been its identity for more than 15 years. The Complainant uses the G4S trademark at least since 2004 and owns registrations for it since 2005, covering a wide range of services. These registrations include, for example, International trademark No. 885912 from November 11, 2005, as well as UK trademark No. UK00002391942, registered on March 17, 2005. Proofs of these registrations, as well as of other ones obtained by the Complainant were duly produced in Annex 8 of the Complaint. The Complainant also owns a wide number of domain names bearing the mark G4S under several country-code Top-Level Domains (“ccTLDs”), as stated in Annexes 7 and 9 of the Complaint. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that bears the Complainant’s global design mark and offers various courier-related services under the Complainant’s name, giving the impression that it is associated with the Complainant. The disputed domain name was registered on March 25, 2021. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark G4S, registered and used worldwide. In fact, the disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s registered mark G4S. The expression chosen by the Respondent to compose the disputed domain name together with “g4s” is “coservices”, where “co” could be related to “courier” and “services” could be easily related to the Complainant’s main activities. The descriptive terms do not negate the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant owns several registrations worldwide for the trademark G4S, as well as several domain names bearing this mark, as evidence by Annexes 7 to 9 of the Complaint. Also, robust evidence of the renown of the Complainant and its mark G4S was produced, as stated by Annexes 4 to 6 of the Complaint. The Complainant contends that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name adopted by the Respondent – a reproduction of the Complainant’s registered mark associated with a descriptive expression – shows a clear intention of misleading Internet users, as it links to a website that bears the Complainant’s global design mark and offers various courier-related services under the Complainant’s name, as well as provides a facility for tracking shipments and a means for users to submit queries. The Complainant also indicates that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, noting the composition of the disputed domain name as well as the current use. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract and deceive Internet users for commercial gain by falsely purporting to represent the Complainant’s courier service offerings. The Complainant tried to contact the Respondent by a cease-and-desist letter on March 31, 2021, and a reminder on April 8, 2021, (Annex 14 to the Complaint), but no response was received from the Respondent. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings The Policy, in its paragraph 4(a), determines that three elements must be present and duly proven by a complainant to obtain relief. These elements are: 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 to 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 Regarding the first of the elements, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has presented adequate proof of having rights in the mark G4S, registered worldwide. In addition, the Complainant has been providing a full range of security and related services for more than 15 years under the G4S mark. Further, the Panel finds that disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark belonging to the Complainant, since this mark is entirely reproduced in the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent with the addition of descriptive terms “co” and “services”. According to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8, where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. Further, it is well established that “.com”, as a generic Top-Level Domain, may be disregarded in the assessment of the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s mark (section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). Hence, the Panel concludes that the first element of the Policy has been satisfied by the Complainant in this dispute. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel understands that the mark G4S is naturally associated with the Complainant, since it is not only registered as a mark in its name, but also has been used to identify the services rendered by the Complainant for more than 15 years. Further, the Complainant provided evidence of the renown of the mark G4S and the full range of services rendered under this mark to its clients in over 85 countries worldwide. Hence, the Panel considers that the Respondent, in all likelihood, could not be unaware of the mark G4S, and its direct relation to the Complainant. In fact, the Complainant presented evidence that the disputed domain name has been used to link to a website that bears the Complainant’s renown logo and fake contact details to offer various courier-related services under the Complainant’s name, as well as to provide a facility for tracking shipments and a means for users to submit queries. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its mark G4S or register a domain name incorporating the mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or has made a bona fide or noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain name. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has made a prima facie showing of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. This has not been rebutted by the Respondent. Thus, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. For this reason, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith It is clear to the Panel that the Respondent has in all probability registered the disputed domain name with the purpose of taking advantage of the Complainant’s mark. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was likely registered to mislead consumers – hence the addition of the expression “coservices” (being the agglutination of “co” and “services”). Further, the additional terms could be considered a reference to the Complainant’s business, a fact from which the Respondent may well profit by giving Internet users the impression that the disputed domain name belongs to the Complainant. The Respondent intended to give an overall impression that the disputed domain name is associated with the Complainant in the sense of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and the Panel accepts that the disputed domain name may be intended for illegitimate purposes. Furthermore, the use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a page that bears the logo of the Complainant offering various courier-related services under the Complainant’s name, as well as a facility for tracking shipments and a means for Internet users to submit queries supports a finding of bad faith in these circumstances. All the points above lead to the conclusion by this Panel that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant when registering the disputed domain name and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel finds that the Complainant has also proved the third element 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 Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira
Sole Panelist
Date: June 6, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy