ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION PSA Automobiles v. Sean Hill Case No. D2023-1131 1. The Parties The Complainant is PSA Automobiles, France, internally represented. The Respondent is Sean Hill, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on March 14, 2023. On March 14, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 15, 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 (unknown / Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 16, 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 24, 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 28, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 17, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on April 18, 2023. The Center appointed Marilena Comanescu 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, PSA Automobiles, is part of the Stellantis group, a multinational automotive manufacturing corporation. The Complainant holds worldwide trademark registrations for STELLANTIS, such as the following: - the International Trademark Registration No. 1558730 for the word STELLANTIS, registered on July 15, 2020, covering goods and services in the International Classes 9, 11, 12, 35, 36, 37, 39; and - the European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 018273787 for the word STELLANTIS, filed on July 15, 2020, and registered on January 28, 2021, covering goods and services in the International Classes 7, 9, 11, 12, 35, 36, 37 and 39. The disputed domain name was registered on January 21, 2022, and, at the time of filing the Complaint, it was used in connection with pay-per-click ("PPC") pages with sponsored links. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name to it. B. Respondent The Respondent did not not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In view of the absence of a Response, the discussion and findings will be based upon the contentions in the Complaint and any reasonable position that can be attributable to the Respondent. Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant can only succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy if the following circumstances are met: (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 the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel will further analyze the potential concurrence of the above circumstances. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant holds rights in the STELLANTIS trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark with an additional term, "finance". However, such addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity as the Complainant's trademark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. Numerous UDRP panels have considered that the addition of other terms (whether geographical, page 3 descriptive, pejorative, meaningless or otherwise) to trademarks in a domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the domain name. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"). Further, it is well established in decisions under the UDRP that the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") (e.g., ".com", ".info", ".org") may typically be disregarded for the purposes of consideration of confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name. See section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Given the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark STELLANTIS, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant asserts that it has given no license or other right to use its trademark to the Respondent, that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use or a bona fide offering of goods and services. In line with the case law, "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". See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. The Complainant has put forward a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not replied to the Complainant's contentions and has not come forward with relevant evidence to rebut the Complainant's prima facie case. There is nothing in the record suggesting that the Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name or that the Respondent made a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial use under the disputed domain name. According to the records before it, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with a parking page displaying PPC links. UDRP panels have constantly found that the use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant's marks or otherwise mislead Internet users. See section 2.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. For all these reasons, the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy is established, and the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant is part of the Stellantis group and holds trademark rights for STELLANTIS since at least 2020. The disputed domain name was registered in 2022 and incorporates the Complainant's distinctive mark and trade name STELLANTIS with an additional word, "finance". From the above, the Panel finds that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant, its business (or that of the Stellantis group, noting the Complainant's claim that the word "finance" "is descriptive of a particular category of services (financial/banking services) which are proposed within the Stellantis group"), and trademark at the registration of the disputed domain name. page 4 At the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a page providing PPC links promoting various goods and services. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy provides that the use of a domain name to intentionally attempt "to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent's] 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 [the respondent's] website or location" is evidence of registration and use in bad faith. The Respondent was using without permission the Complainant's distinctive trademark with a descriptive word in order to get traffic on its web portal and to misleadingly divert Internet users to third parties websites, and thus to obtain commercial gain from the false impression created with regard to a potential affiliation or connection with the Complainant. This activity may also disrupt the Complainant's business and tarnish its trademark. The Respondent has not participated in the present proceeding. Such fact, together with all the other elements in this case, supports, in the eyes of this Panel, a finding of bad faith behavior. For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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. /Marilena Comanescu/ Marilena Comanescu Sole Panelist Date: May 10, 2023
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy