The Complainant is Orano SA, France, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Abdul Kareem, Nigeria.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 16, 2021. On August 16, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 18, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that 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 August 23, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 12, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 16, 2021.
The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on September 21, 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 BackgroundThe Complainant is a nuclear fuel cycle company offering products and services that include mining, dismantling, conversion, enrichment, recycling, logistics and engineering. It has used the ORANO mark since at least as early as 2018, operates 17 industrial sites in France, and employs more than 16,500 individuals. The Complainant enjoys the benefit of trademark registrations for its ORANO mark in multiple jurisdictions, including French Trademark Reg. No. 4370904, registered on October 13, 2017.
The disputed domain name was registered on April 19, 2021. As of the filing of the Complaint, the Respondent was using the disputed domain name to redirect internet users to a website that resolves to a blank page and lacks content.
A representative of the Complainant sent letters to the Respondent on or about June 17, 2021, June 24, 2021, and July 1, 2021, putting the Respondent on notice of its unauthorized use of the disputed domain name and requesting that the Respondent transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant. The Complainant received no response to these communications.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsTo succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (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 SimilarThis element requires the Panel to consider two issues: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant mark; and, second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant owns registrations for the ORANO mark. The disputed domain name incorporates the ORANO mark in its entirety, together with the addition of the dictionary term “-groups” which does not eliminate the confusing similarity. The applicable Top Level Domain (“TLD”) “.com” is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test.
Accordingly, the Complainant has succeeded under this first element of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsA complainant succeeds under this element if it makes a prima facie showing that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and if that prima facie showing remains unrebutted by the respondent.
The Complainant in this case asserts, among other things, that: (1) the Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant in any way, (2) the Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or permitted the Respondent to register a domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark, (3) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and (4) the Respondent has failed to make use of the disputed domain name’s website and has not demonstrated any attempt to make legitimate use of the disputed domain name and website, which evinces a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
These assertions establish the Complainant’s prima facie case. The Respondent has not answered the Complainant’s assertions, and, seeing no basis in the record to overcome the Complainant’s prima facie showing, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied this second element.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithBecause the Complainant’s ORANO mark is well-known, and is registered in jurisdictions around the world, the Panel finds it likely that the Respondent was aware of the mark when it registered the disputed domain name. In the circumstances of this case, without the benefit of any explanation whatsoever from the Respondent as to a possible good faith use of the disputed domain name, such a showing is sufficient to establish bad faith registration of the disputed domain name.
The circumstances also demonstrate bad faith use of the disputed domain name in terms of the Policy. Where a disputed domain name is “so obviously connected with such a well-known name and products…its very use by someone with no connection with the products suggests opportunistic bad faith”. See, Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net,WIPO Case No. D2000-0226. Furthermore, from the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding (see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). The Respondent’s bad faith is also affirmed by the lack of response to correspondence sent on behalf of the Complainant concerning the dispute.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established this third element under the Policy.
7. DecisionFor 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
Evan D. Brown
Sole Panelist
Date: October 5, 2021