The Complainant is Belfius Bank S.A. / Belfius Bank N.V., Belgium, internally represented.
The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Fredrik Izan, Sweden.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 8, 2021. On September 10, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On September 10, 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 September 13, 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 September 20, 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 September 21, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 11, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 12, 2021.
The Center appointed Willem J. H. Leppink as the sole panelist in this matter on October 15, 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 following facts are undisputed.
The Complainant is a well-known Belgian bank and financial services provider, with a reputation in and outside Belgium.
The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademarks incorporating iterations of BELFIUS, including, but not limited to the European Union Trade Mark BELFIUS (word mark), with registration no. 010581205, with a filing date of January 23, 2012 and a registration date of May 24, 2012 for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41, and 45, and the Benelux trademark BELFIUS (word mark), with registration no. 914650, with a filing date of January 23, 2012 and a registration date of May 10, 2012 for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41, and 45. The above-mentioned trademarks will hereinafter jointly be referred to, in singular, as the “Trademark”.
The Complainant is also owner of several domain names that incorporate the Trademark, including, inter alia
On August 24, 2021, the Complainant has received a complaint from one of its clients being a victim of a phishing attempt via a text message mentioning the Domain Name.
On August 24 and 31, 2021, the Complainant contacted the Registrar with high priority. The Registrar confirmed the suspension of the Domain Name on September 8, 2021. However, the Complainant’s request for the transfer of the Domain Name was not granted by the Respondent.
A cease and desist letter was sent to the respective contact addresses listed as the Respondent’s email address, but remained unanswered. A second cease and desist letter was sent to the provided email address, after the Center informed the Complainants of the Respondent’s contact details confirmed by the Registrar. This letter also remained unanswered.
The Domain Name was registered on August 22, 2021, and at the time of filing the Complaint it did not resolve to an active webpage.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant contends the following.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark. The Domain Name is composed of the complete incorporation of the Trademark, combined with a non-distinctive term “vervallen” (Dutch for “expired”) and the generic Top-Level-Domain (“gTLD”) “.digital”. The addition of the term “vervallen” does not lessen the inevitable confusion of the Domain Name with the Trademark, on the contrary, the word “vervallen” certainly strengthen the association with the Complainant’s and its Trademark as it obviously refers to the activities of the Complainant, as for example in the case of expired bank cards. The Domain Name is likely to make assume Internet users that the website that is linked to the Domain Name offers some kind of services supplied by the Complainant, which obviously is not the case.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent is not and has never been commonly known by the Domain Name. Moreover, the Respondent does not have any affiliation, association, sponsorship, or connection with the Complainant and has not been authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted by the Complainant or by any subsidiary or affiliated company to register the concerned Domain Name and to use it. Moreover, the Complainant states that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. In fact, the Respondent is not making any use of the Domain Name in connection with an active website or even indicating demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name.
The Domain Name was registered and has been used in bad faith. Because of the well-known character and reputation of the Trademark, the Respondent must have had knowledge of the Complainant’s Trademark and use in the market. Further, the Respondent seems to be engaged in a phishing scheme, a practice intended to trick consumers into revealing their bank account details or other personal and proprietary information by means of misleading text messages. Consequently, the Domain Name is not used in any type of legitimate business or services. It is clear that the Domain Name has been used to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and thus this use constitutes a bad faith use of the Domain Name. The unauthorized registration of the Domain Name by the Respondent and its passive holding, likely in the aim of fraudulent uses, are for the purpose of commercial gain and then constitute bad faith registration and use. Also, the concealment of the Respondent’s identity is an indication of bad faith.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsPursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements:
(i) the 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 of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Noting the burden of proof on the Complainant, the Respondent’s default (i.e., failure to submit a formal response) would not by itself mean that the Complainant is deemed to have prevailed. The Respondent’s default is not necessarily an admission that the Complainant’s claims are true. See in this regard WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.3 “In cases involving wholly unsupported and conclusory allegations advanced by the complainant, or where a good faith defense is apparent (e.g., from the content of the website to which a disputed domain name resolves), panels may find that – despite a respondent’s default – a complainant has failed to prove its case. Further to paragraph 14(b) of the UDRP Rules however, panels have been prepared to draw certain inferences in light of the particular facts and circumstances of the case e.g., where a particular conclusion is prima facie obvious, where an explanation by the respondent is called for but is not forthcoming, or where no other plausible conclusion is apparent.”
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark or service mark and, if so, the Domain Name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
The Complainant has shown that it has rights in the Trademark, valid in various jurisdictions, including the European Union and Benelux.
As set out in the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7, the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The threshold test for confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Trademark involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the Domain Name.
In light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark. The Domain Name consist of the dictionary term “vervallen”, followed by the element “belfius”, which is identical to the Trademark and the “.digital” gTLD. As set out in 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), in this case the term “vervallen”, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.
In light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark.
Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that the first element of the Policy is met.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThe Panel has carefully considered the factual allegations that have been made by the Complainant and are supported by the submitted evidence.
In particular, the Respondent has failed to offer the Panel any of the types of evidence set forth in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy from which the Panel might conclude that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, such as:
(i) use or preparation to use the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to notice of the dispute; or
(ii) being commonly known by the Domain Name (as an individual, business or other organization) even if the Respondent has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The Respondent does not seem to be affiliated with the Complainant in any way. There is no evidence that the term “vervallen-belfius” is the Respondent’s name or that the Respondent is commonly known under this name. There is also no evidence that the Respondent is, or has ever been, a licensee of the Complainant or that the Respondent has ever asked, or has ever been permitted in any way by the Complainant to register or use the Trademark, or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the Trademark.
Furthermore, now that the Domain Name does not have any active content and the lack of a Response by the Respondent, the Panel concludes that the Respondent is not making or preparing to make a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Domain Name, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Furthermore, the Complainant has provided evidence that the Domain Name is being used in connection to a fraudulent phishing scheme via text messages; such use can never confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent. See in this regard WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has put forward a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, which the Respondent has not rebutted.
Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that the second element of the Policy is met.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithThe Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel refers to its considerations under section 6.B and adds the following:
In light of the evidence filed by the Complainant, the Panel finds that the Trademark and the Complainant’s activities are well known at least in Belgium and other parts of Europe.
The well-known reputation of the Complainant and its Trademark, the distinctiveness of the Trademark, and the fact that the Respondent did not file a response to the Complaint, are all circumstances from which the Panel draws the conclusion that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel on balance finds that here the Respondent must have registered the Domain Name in bad faith and takes into account: (i) the passive holding of the Domain Name; (ii) the fact that the Domain Name may be registered for illegal purposes; (iii) the fact that the Respondent did not file a response to the Complaint; and (iv) the Respondent’s registrant details appear to be false. In that respect the Panel notes that although the Respondent claims to be located in Sweden, the purported street address including postal code refers to a town in the Netherlands, which borders Belgium where the Complainant is located. The purported address is the address of a bar.
As stated in the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4, previous UDRP panels have held that the use of a domain name for purposes other than to host a website may constitute bad faith. Such purposes include sending email, phishing, identity theft, or malware distribution. The Panel states that the filed evidence about the received complaint from one of its clients being a victim of a phishing attempt via a text message mentioning the Domain Name, is plausible evidence of such bad faith activities of the Respondent. The fact that this is not denied by the Respondent only strengthens this assumption.
As stated in the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3, previous UDRP panels 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.
Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that the third element of the Policy is met.
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
Willem J. H. Leppink
Sole Panelist
Date: October 29, 2021