The Complainant is DCI SA, Switzerland, represented by In Concreto, France.
The Respondent is See PrivacyGuardian.org, United States of America (“United States”) / Ogred Op Hjkla, Malaysia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 5, 2021. On July 6, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On July 6, 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 July 7, 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 July 9, 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 July 16, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 5, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 6, 2021. The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on August 16, 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 Swiss company originally founded in France in 1968. It has provided laundry, washing and cleaning services under the 5ÀSEC mark since it launched its first laundry in Marseille, France in 1968. Its “5àSec” brand is now present in around 31 countries, with more than 1,700 shops serving over 114,000 customers per day. The Complainant is the registered proprietor of a number of trademarks comprising “5àsec” including International Trademark 5ÀSEC, Registration No. 362934, registered on December 9, 1969, designating a number of territories including the United States, Russian Federation, and many European countries; and International Trademark MY5ÀSEC, Registration No. 1371012, registered on March 22, 2017, designating the European Union, India, Switzerland, and Russian Federation. The Complainant intends to use the MY5ÀSEC mark in connection with a new service dedicated to premium laundry services monitored through a mobile application. It is the holder of the domain names The Domain Name was registered by the Respondent on May 7, 2021. It resolves to a website with script in Chinese characters and featuring numerous pornographic images. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its 5ÀSEC or MY5ÀSEC trademarks (the “Marks”), that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings For this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that: (i) the Domain Name is 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 of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has uncontested rights in the Marks, both by virtue of its trademark registrations and as a result of the goodwill and reputation acquired through its widespread use of the 5ÀSEC mark over many years. Ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s MY5ÀSEC mark save for the accent over the letter “a”, and comprises the entirety of the Complainant’s 5ÀSEC mark (save for the accent) together with the term “my”. In the Panel’s view, these minor differences do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Marks. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made out a strong prima facie case that the Respondent could have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services but for a website comprising numerous pornographic images which does not give any indication of a legitimate reason for use of a domain name substantially identical to the Complainant’s distinctive MY5ÀSEC mark. The Respondent has never been licensed or otherwise authorized by the Complainant to use the Marks. The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint to explain its use of the Domain Name or to take any other steps to counter the prima facie case established by the Complainant. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In light of the nature of the Domain Name as indicated above, the Panel is in little doubt that the Respondent had the Complainant and its rights in the Marks in mind when it registered the Domain Name. The Respondent registered the Domain Name for commercial gain with a view to taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s rights in the Marks, by confusing Internet users into believing that the Domain Name was being operated by or authorized by the Complainant for legitimate purposes related to the Complainant’s activities. The association between the Marks and pornographic content also inevitably tarnishes the Complainant’s marks. The Panel is in no doubt that this amounts to paradigm bad faith registration and use for the purposes of the Policy. Accordingly, 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 Ian Lowe
Sole Panelist
Date: August 30, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy