The Complainant is DALKIA, France, represented by IP Twins S.A.S., France.
The Respondent is Nguyen Quang, Viet Nam. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 16, 2021. On June 16, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 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 June 18, 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 June 21, 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 June 25, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 15, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 16, 2021. The Center appointed Zoltán Takács as the sole panelist in this matter on July 27, 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 part of the EDF Group and offers customers expertise in developing, building and maintaining innovative, greener, more cost-effective energy solutions. The Complainant employs 16,600 people and provide services to more than 2,000 industrial sites, 21,900 commercial and service-sector facilities, as well as 4,200 healthcare facilities in France and internationally. Among others, the Complainant owns the French Trademark Registration No. 98717437 for the word mark DALKIA registered on February 11, 1998 for services of classes 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Good and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks. Since August 6, 2001, the Complainant owns the French domain name registration The disputed domain name was registered on October 29, 2020, and currently resolves to an error web page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its DALKIA trademark, since it reproduces it entirely and addition of the descriptive element “ltd” in not sufficient to prevent finding of confusing similarity. The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and is unable to rely on any of the circumstances set out in paragraphs 4(c)(i), (ii) or (iii) of the Policy. The Complainant claims that the Respondent was most likely aware its DALKIA trademark at the time of obtaining the disputed domain name and has registered it to in some way take advantage of its goodwill. The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires that the Panel’s decision be made “on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. It has been a consensus view in UDRP decisions that a respondent’s default (i.e., failure to submit a response) would not by itself mean that the complainant is deemed to have prevailed; a respondent’s default is not necessarily an admission that the complainant’s claims are true. See section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). A complainant must evidence each of the three elements required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to succeed on the complaint, namely that; (i) the disputed domain name is 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 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 Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, there are two requirements which the Complainant must establish, first that it has rights in a trademark or service mark, and second that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark. It has been a consensus view among UDRP panels that if the complainant owns a trademark, then it generally satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights. The Complainant produced proper evidence of having registered rights in the DALKIA trademark. For the purpose of this proceeding, the Panel establishes that the French Trademark Registration No. 98717437 for the word mark DALKIA satisfies the requirement of having trademark rights for the purpose of the Policy. Having determined the presence of the Complainant’s trademark rights, the Panel next assesses whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. According to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, the standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. This test typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the disputed domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. According to section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, 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. According to section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, the applicable Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) in a domain name (e.g., “.com”, “.club”, “.nyc”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is generally disregarded under the first element confusingly similar test. The Complainant’s DALKIA trademark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. The only difference between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name is addition of the term “ltd”, which is a standard abbreviation for “limited”, a form of corporate structure available in many countries of the world. In view of the Panel, addition of the term “ltd” to the Complainant’s DALKIA trademark in the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity and the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and that requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in a domain name by showing any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation: (i) its use of, or demonstrable preparation to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services; (ii) it has been commonly known by the domain name; (iii) it is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. In the present case, the Complainant has submitted sufficient and uncontested evidence that it holds well-established rights in the DALKIA trademark. The Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to use its DALKIA trademark in any way, and its prior rights in the DALKIA trademark precede the date of registration of the disputed domain name. According to section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, while the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, 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 the 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. The Respondent defaulted and failed to respond, and by doing so failed to offer the Panel any type of evidence set forth in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or otherwise counter the Complainant’s prima facie case. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists a number of factors which, if found by the panel to be present, shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. This non-exclusive list includes: “(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your 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 your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.” The Complainant’s DALKIA trademark is inherently distinctive and widely used internationally. A basic Internet search against the disputed domain name returns solely the Complainant and its business. Previous UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith (see section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). The Respondent’s reproduction of the Complainant’s DALKIA trademark in the disputed domain name convinces the Panel that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s business and prior rights at the time of obtaining the disputed domain name and chose to register it in order to exploit the reputation behind the DALKIA trademark without any authorization or rights to do so. There is no evidence that the disputed domain name has been used in any active way and it currently redirects to an error web page. According to section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, “from the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding”. In view of the Panel high level of distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s DALKIA trademark; the Respondent’s lack of any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; the absence of any conceivable good faith use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent and the failure by the Respondent to react and respond to the evidence submitted by the Complainants further support an undisputed presumption of the Respondent’s evident targeting of the Complainant’s trademark rights and suggest that the Respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain name is in bad faith. Noting the above discussed facts and circumstances the Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is 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 Zoltán Takács
Sole Panelist
Date: August 10, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy