ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Aegon UK Plc v. Azad Imamoglu, Azad Inc. Case No. D2022-4822 1. The Parties The Complainant is Aegon UK Plc, United Kingdom ("UK"), represented by Pinsent Masons LLP, UK. The Respondent is Azad Imamoglu, Azad Inc., Türkiye. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name
is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on December 15, 2022. On December 16, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same day, 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 December 27, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 16, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on January 17, 2023. The Center appointed Daniel Peña as the sole panelist in this matter on January 23, 2023. 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a company within the Aegon N.V. group and a multi-national financial services provider offering life insurance, pension and asset management services. Such services are offered by reference to the brand AEGON for which the Complainant and the group has various trademark registrations worldwide, including in the UK, European Union, United States of America, Australia, China and Canada. Amongst those, is the Benelux Trademark Registration No. 393134, registered on April 1, 1984. The Complainant's trademarks are registered for various goods and services including financial services, banking services, insurance services, pension services, financial and asset management and investment services, among others. The disputed domain name was registered on August 18, 2022, and does not resolve to any active website 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant has around 31.7 million customers worldwide and has been operating under the AEGON brand since 1983. The Complainant operates under the AEGON brand in the UK, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and China, in addition to other territories around the world. The Complainant has over 3.8 million customers in the UK and is the market leader in workplace solutions and financial advice platforms. The UK business generated net deposits of EUR 10,228,000 and gross deposits of EUR 24,764,000 in 2021. The disputed domain name is a case of domain name squatting. The dominant and only distinctive element of the disputed domain name is the use of AEGON, which is identical to the Complainant's trademarks. The Respondent has added the generic words 'global' and 'market' after the word 'aegon' in an attempt to confuse Internet users into believing that the disputed domain dame is authorized by the Complainant or to lead Internet users to believe it is in some way connected to the Complainant. The Complainant is not aware of the Respondent using the disputed domain name in connection with the offering of goods or services prior to the registration date. The Respondent has no rights to be commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Complainant considers it is reasonable to conclude that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name knowing that they are likely to attract interest from Internet users searching for the Complainant. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent must have been aware that in registering the disputed domain name, it was misappropriating the valuable intellectual property of the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings To 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. Considering these requirements, the Panel rules as follows: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has provided evidence of its rights in the AEGON trademarks on the basis of its multiple trademark registrations in several countries. A trademark registration provides a clear indication that the rights in the trademark belong to the Complainant (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 1.2.1). It has also been established by prior UDRP panels that incorporating a trademark in its entirety into a domain name is normally sufficient to establish that the domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark (see section 1.7 of WIPO Overview 3.0). The Respondent's incorporation of the Complainant's mark in the disputed domain name in its entirety is sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's marks. The addition of the terms "global" and "market" as a suffix to the Complainant's trademark AEGON in the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the Complainant's marks. Furthermore, the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com" does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity either. The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark and the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant bears the burden of proof in establishing this requirement. In view of the difficulties inherent in proving a negative and because the relevant information is mainly in the possession of the Respondent, it is enough for the Complainant to establish a prima facie case which, if not rebutted by sufficient evidence from the Respondent, will lead to this ground being set forth. Refraining from submitting any Response, the Respondent has brought to the Panel's attention no circumstances from which the Panel could infer that the Respondent has rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel will now examine the Complainant's arguments regarding the absence of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in connection with the disputed domain name. The Complainant claims that the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use the Complainant's trademarks in a domain name or in any other manner. Furthermore, the disputed domain name directs to an inactive website. The Panel also finds that the nature of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant's trademarks (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1). The Respondent did not submit a Response or attempt to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Panel draws adverse inferences from this failure, where appropriate, in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 14(b). The Panel finds the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name page 4 and that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy stipulates that any of the following circumstances, inter alia, shall be considered as evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) circumstances indicating that the respondent is using the domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on its website or location. With regard to the bad faith at the time of registration, the Panel notes that "aegon" is not a common or descriptive term, but a renowned trademark in and to which the Complainant has demonstrated has rights. The disputed domain name reproduces, without any authorization or approval, the Complainant's registered trademark, and this is the only distinctive component of the disputed domain name. Moreover, the disputed domain name is inherently misleading as it reproduces the Complainant's AEGON trademark together with the generic terms "global" and "market". In addition, owing to the substantial presence established worldwide, it is at the least very unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of the existence of the Complainant's trademarks when registering a domain name that entirely reproduces the Complainant's trademark. Therefore, it is more likely than not that the Respondent, when registering the disputed domain name, had knowledge of the Complainant's earlier rights to the AEGON trademark. The bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name is also affirmed by the fact that the Respondent has not denied, or even responded to, the assertions of bad faith made by the Complainant in this proceeding. Furthermore, the Panel finds that the passive holding of the disputed domain name in the circumstances of the case does not prevent a finding of bad faith registration and use. On the contrary, this Panel agrees with the Complainant's assertion that in the case of domain names containing well-known earlier marks, passive holding can constitute an indication of bad faith. Here the Panel finds that the Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith (see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). Also, the Respondent seems to have provided false or incomplete contact information for purposes of registering the disputed domain name. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the passive holding of the disputed domain name disrupts the Complainant's business. Accordingly, the Panel finds, based on the evidence presented, that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Therefore, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision For 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, , be transferred to the Complainant. /Daniel Peña/ Daniel Peña Sole Panelist Date: February 6, 2023
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy