The Complainant is Index Éducation, France, represented internally.
The Respondent is Domain Administrator, Hong Kong, China.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 13, 2021. On October 13, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 20, 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 October 20, 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 amendment to the Complaint on October 21, 2021.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 November 2, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 22, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 25, 2021.
The Center appointed WiIliam A. Van Caenegem as the sole panelist in this matter on December 9, 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 trademark INDEX EDUCATION, was registered by the Complainant with the French Institut National de la Propriété Intellectuelle (“INPI”) on November 27, 2006 (No. 3465492).
The Complainant has registered and conducts its business online by reference to the domain name
The disputed domain name
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent does not own any rights in relation to the INDEX EDUCATION trademark and in relation to the domain name
Further, the Complainant asserts that by using the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent intentionally attempts to take advantage of the Complainant’s notoriety in the education business in France and abroad in order to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a redirection to a malicious website.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe disputed domain name is almost identical to the registered trademark INDEX EDUCATION of the Complainant. The registered trademark of the Complainant is rendered in capital letters in the INPI record. That trademark would translate to “index éducation” in cursive script. Therefore, on one view, the disputed domain name could in fact be considered identical to the registered trademark of the Complainant. If considered not exactly identical, then the registered trademark is in any case immediately recognizable in the disputed domain name. What differences there are, those being the dash between the two words and the accent added to the “e” in “education”, can be considered trivial and irrelevant to the present application of the test.
Therefore the Panel holds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the registered trademark INDEX EDUCATION of the Complainant.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThe Respondent has not reacted to the contentions of the Complainant. The Complainant provides a screenshot of a malicious website to which the disputed domain name resolved at the time accessed. When the Panel accessed the disputed domain name on December 17, 2021 it resolved to a news site. There is no indication before the Panel of any activity in relation to the disputed domain name that would give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the Respondent. The Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name nor does it have any rights in the mark INDEX EDUCATION or trade legitimately under that name. The INDEX EDUCATION trademark is distinctive, and the actions of the Respondent have all the hallmarks of an attempt to derive some advantage from cybersquatting on the Complainant’s trademark and in relation to its legitimate domain name. It can be inferred from the Complainant’s contentions that the Respondent was never authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark in any manner, including by reflecting it in a domain name.
Therefore the Panel holds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithThe disputed domain name is identical or almost identical to the distinctive registered trademark INDEX EDUCATION of the Complainant. It can be inferred that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s rights in that trademark at the time of registration, and that the Respondent realized that the addition of the accent to the “e” would enable registration in the face of the Complainant’s rights. The disputed domain name variously resolved to a malicious website and to an unrelated news site. Neither of these are redolent of good faith, rather they reflect a strategy of parking the disputed domain name, with a view to extracting some financial advantage from its striking similarity to the mark and the corresponding domain name the Complainant has exclusive rights in.
Therefore the Panel holds that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
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
William A. Van Caenegem
Sole Panelist
Date: December 23, 2021