The Complainant is Safran, France, represented by Ebrand Services, France.
The Respondent is Xfzi Yu, France.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 7, 2021. On December 7, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 8, 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 December 9, 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 December 9, 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 December 17, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 6, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 12, 2022.
The Center appointed Isabelle Leroux as the sole panelist in this matter on January 28, 2022. 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 the company SAFRAN, an international high-technology group, registered in the Paris Trade and Companies Register.
For the needs and purposes of its activities, the Complainant is the owner of numerous trademarks (thereafter the “SAGEMCOM Trademarks”) such as:
- International word trademark SAGEMCOM, no. 1023960, registered on July 30, 2009, in classes 9, 38, and 42;
- European Union word trademark SAGEMCOM, no. 007562739, registered on March 8, 2010 in classes 9, 11, 38, and 42;
The Complainant also owns several domain names containing the SAGEMCOM Trademarks, in particular:
-
-
-
-
The disputed domain name was registered on September 28, 2021.
The disputed domain name is active and directs to a webpage promoting sexual content.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant claims that:
A. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks since it incorporates the trademark of the Complainant in its entirety. Furthermore, the differences between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s trademarks are the addition of the letters and numbers “fst3686v10hun3970”, which do not avoid a risk of confusion. The first association “fst3686v” refers to the serial number of a product sold by the Complainant which is “F@ST 3686 V1B SFR”.
B. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name since the Complainant has never authorized nor given its consent to the Respondent for registering and using the disputed domain name; further, there is no evidence of any use or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection to a bona fide offering of goods or services, since the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for pornographic services.
C. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent since it incorporates the trademark of the Complainant in its entirety and is used to offer pornographic services. The use of a third-party trademark in a domain name for such services has been held by previous UDRP panels as being evidence of both registration and use in bad faith.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarFirst of all, the Panel finds that the Complainant has provided evidence that it has prior rights in the SAGEMCOM Trademarks.
The Panel further notices that the disputed domain name is composed of the identical reproduction of the SAGEMCOM Trademarks, to which has been added (i) the following association of letters and numbers: “fst3686v1”, which the Complainant claims relates to the serial number of one product sold by the Complainant, (ii) additional letters and numbers: “0hun3970“, and (iii) the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.com”.
The SAGEMCOM Trademarks are entirely reproduced and clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name; the addition of the letters and numbers “fst3686v10hun3970” and the gTLD “.com” do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The first element of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is thus fulfilled.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsNumerous UDRP panels have found that, even though the Complainant bears the general burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent once the Complainant makes a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. See Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455.
Hence, after the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, it will be deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP when the Respondent fails to submit a response.
In this case, the Complainant brings forward the following elements:
- no license or authorization has been granted by the Complainant to the Respondent;
- the Respondent is not known under the disputed domain name, nor does it have any trademark rights on such name; and
- the Complainant has no relationship whatsoever with the Respondent.
In addition, there is no indication of any potential rights of legitimate interests that the Respondent may have in the disputed domain name.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent has not responded to the Complainant’s contentions and therefore not provided evidence otherwise.
Furthermore, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect to a website offering pornographic services and adult content.
Previous UDRP panels have held that use of a third-party trademark in a domain name to offer pornographic services cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services. See Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG. v. Denis Stravinsky, WIPO Case No. D2019-1282.
Given these circumstances, the Panel finds that the second element of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithThe Complainant contends that the SAGEMCOM Trademarks are internationally known and the Respondent knew or should have known of the marks when registering the disputed domain name. The Panel notes that the SAGEMCOM Trademarks are particularly well‑known in France, where the Parties are located. Also, the choice of additional letters and numbers, in particular “fst3686v1”, which appear to relate to a serial number of a product of the Complainant, points to the Respondent’s knowledge of Complainant and its products. Accordingly, it is clear that the Respondent knew of and targeted the Complainant’s trademark in bad faith when registering the disputed domain name.
Moreover, previous UDRP panels have held that use of a well‑known trademark in a domain name to offer pornographic services constitute evidence of both registration and use in bad faith. See Sanofi v. Yansheng zhang, GNAME.COM PTE. LTD, WIPO Case No. D2021-1751.
Taking into account all of the above, it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith, so that the third and final 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
Isabelle Leroux
Sole Panelist
Date: February 11, 2022