ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION ANIMA Corp v. Alexander Lyons Case No. D2023-0948 1. The Parties The Complainant is ANIMA Corp, France, represented by Coblence Avocats, France. The Respondent is Alexander Lyons, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name
is registered with Porkbun LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on March 2, 2023. On March 3, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 4, 2023, 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 (Private by Design, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 10, 2023, 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 March 13, 2023. 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 March 15, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 4, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on April 5, 2023. The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on April 26, 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 incorporated in France, specializing in the sale of shoes and accessories for women under its trademark AMINA MUADDI, which is registered in numerous jurisdictions. Among others, the Complainant is the owner of the International Trademark Registration No. 1371021, registered on July 27, 2017, for goods and services in class 3, 9, 14, 18, 25, and 35, designating many jurisdictions around the world including the United States of America. The Complainant also owns and operates its main website at the domain name . The Respondent is reportedly an individual from the United States of America. The disputed domain name was registered on January 17, 2023. The disputed domain name has been associated with a website offering it for sale. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its AMINA MUADDI trademark. It further argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant is also convinced that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must prove each of the following elements with respect to each disputed domain name: (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 Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between page 3 the Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 1.7. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds that the entirety of the mark AMINA MUADDI is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, UDRP panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of "proving a negative", requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant's prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that: - before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent did not use, nor made demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.2. - the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.3. - the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.4. - the record contains no other factors demonstrating rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular but without limitation, that if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. page 4 The Complainant has provided evidence showing that the disputed domain name was registered after the Complainant's registration of its AMINA MUADDI trademark, and it resolves to a website offering it for sale for the price of USD 1,450. In this sense, the Panel visited the website at the disputed domain name and was able to verify that it is on sale for USD 1,450. The Panel considers that this case reflects that the Respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration most likely in excess of the out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.1. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established. 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. /Pablo A. Palazzi/ Pablo A. Palazzi Sole Panelist Date: May 10, 2023
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy