The Complainant is Cegedim, France, internally represented.
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States of America / Sedat Yazar, Turkey.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 9, 2021. On December 10, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 13, 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 29, 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 January 28, 2022.
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 February 1, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 21, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 22, 2022. The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on March 3, 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 a company registered in France. It is a supplier of software and technology services in the healthcare sector.
The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations comprising or including the mark CEGEDIM, the earliest of which dates from October 7, 1991.
The Complainant is also the owner of European Union Trade Mark (“EUTM”) registration number 018186339 for the word mark BEYOND BY CEGEDIM, registered for various classes of goods and services on July 23, 2020 with a filing date of January 21, 2020.
The disputed domain name was also registered on January 21, 2020.
The Complainant has exhibited evidence that the disputed domain name has resolved to a Sedo page offering the disputed domain name for sale at a price of EUR 818.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant states that it was founded in 1969. It submits that it generated revenues of EUR 504 million in 2020 and has over 50,000 employees in over 10 countries. It states that it has deployed the trademark BEYOND BY CEGEDIM in connection with an insurance-related offer named “Beyond” provided by one of its affiliate entities.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical to its BEYOND BY CEGEDIM trademark.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It contends that the disputed domain name is identical to its trademark and has been dishonestly registered only for the purpose of sale.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. It contends that any third-party use of the disputed domain name would inevitably infringe its rights in the mark BEYOND BY CEGEDIM and that the disputed domain name can only have been registered for the purpose of a sale to the Complainant.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsIn order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are that:
(i) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Complainant has demonstrated that it has registered trademark rights in the mark BEYOND BY CEGEDIM. The disputed domain name is identical to that trademark and the Panel therefore finds that the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the policy is satisfied.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsIn the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions set out above give rise to a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has failed to file any Response in this proceeding and has not submitted any explanation for its registration and use of the disputed domain name, or evidence of rights or legitimate interests on its part in the disputed domain name, whether in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. The Panel therefore finds that the second element under paragraph 4(a) of the policy is satisfied.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithThe Panel considers it inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name otherwise than with knowledge of the Complainant’s application for a EUTM BEYOND BY CEGEDIM referred to above. The Panel notes in particular that the disputed domain name was registered on the same date that the Complainant’s application for that trademark was filed and finds this to be an obvious case of registration of a domain name in anticipation of trademark rights: see e.g. section 3.8.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
The Panel finds further that the Respondent has offered the disputed domain name, which is identical to the Complainant’s trademark and has no meaning in commerce other than to refer to the Complainant’s “Beyond” business offering, for sale for the price of EUR 818. The Panel infers therefore that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name (paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy).
The Panel therefore finds that the third element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied.
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,
Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: March 8, 2022