ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Eurazeo v. Dona Chae Case No. D2023-1496 1. The Parties The Complainant is Eurazeo, France, represented by IP Twins, France. The Respondent is Dona Chae, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Key-Systems GmbH (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on April 5, 2023. On April 5, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 11, 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 (On behalf of eurazeogeniustrade.com OWNER c/o whoisproxy.com) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 18, 2023 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Respondent provided an informal response and confirmed the contact details on April 18, 2023. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on April 19, 2023. 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 April 20, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 10, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Commencement of Panel Appointment Process on May 11, 2023. page 2 The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on May 16, 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. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a globally active investment group formed in April 2001 by a merger of the Azeo and Eurafrance companies. The Complainant is the owner of EURAZEO trademark, which includes the International Trademark Registration No. 759748 for EURAZEO, registered on April 25, 2001, for particularly business and financial services as protected in class 35 and 36. The Complainant further owns and operates its main website at the domain name . The disputed domain name was registered on February 16, 2023. The Respondent is reportedly an individual located in the United Kingdom. At one time, the disputed domain name resolved to a website prominently featuring the Complainant's EURAZEO trademark for allegedly offered financial transaction services (Annex 11 to the Complaint). In addition, the overall design of the associated website created the (falsely) impression that the respective website was operated by the Complainant itself. Also, the provided contact details on the associated website were identical to the contact details of the Complainant (Annex 11 to the Complaint). At the time of the decision, the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website anymore. 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 confusingly similar to its EURAZEO trademark. It further argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. In addition, the Complainant is 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. However, the Center received two inform email communications from the Respondent on April 18, 2023, merely stating "Yes, I confirm" and "I do not know anything about it". page 3 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled, even if the Respondent has not formally replied to the Complaint. See Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2007-1228. However, concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel may, where relevant, accept the provided reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint as true. See Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o., WIPO Case No. D2004-0110. For the evaluation of this case, the Panel has further taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the consensus views stated therein. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar To begin with, the Panel confirms that the Complainant has satisfied the threshold requirement of having trademark rights in EURAZEO. The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's EURAZEO trademark, as it fully incorporates the Complainant's trademark. As stated at section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The addition of the terms "genius" and "trade" does not, in view of the Panel, prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's EURAZEO trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests While the burden of proof remains with the Complainant, the Panel recognizes that this would often result in the impossible task of proving a negative, in particular as the evidence needed to show the Respondent's rights or legitimate interests is primarily within the knowledge of the Respondent. Therefore, the Panel agrees with prior UDRP panels that the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case before the burden of production of evidence shifts to the Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name to meet the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455. With its Complaint, the Complainant has provided prima facie evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests, including no license to use the Complainant's trademark within the disputed domain name. page 4 There is also no indication in the current record that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. In the absence of a substantive response, the Respondent has particularly failed to demonstrate any of the nonexclusive circumstances evidencing rights or legitimate interests under the Policy, paragraph 4(c), or provide any other evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Even more, the Panel notes that the nature of the disputed domain name caries a significant risk of implied affiliation or association and that such implied affiliation was obviously the intent of the Respondent. The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was used in association with a misleading website to impersonate the Complainant, which amounts to an illicit use that can never confer rights or legitimate interests upon the Respondent. WIPO Overview, 3.0, section 2.13. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel believes that the Respondent deliberately attempted to create a likelihood of confusion among Internet users for illegitimate purposes, particularly for the following reasons. At the date of registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent was apparently well aware of the Complainant and its EURAZEO trademark. It is obvious to the Panel, that the Respondent has deliberately chosen the disputed domain name to target and mislead Internet users. Consequently, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. Additionally, the Panel finds that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel particularly notes that previously, the disputed domain name resolved to a website creating the false impression that it is operated by the Complainant, possibly for the purpose of phishing or other fraudulent activities (Annex 11 to the Complaint). Actually, the Panel cannot conceive of any plausible and legitimate use of the inherently misleading disputed domain name that would be in good faith, except with an authorization of the Complainant. The fact that the disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website does not change the Panel's findings in this respect. Taking all facts of the case into consideration, the Panel is convinced that this is a typical cybersquatting case, which the UDRP was designed to stop. The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and that the Complainant consequently has satisfied the third element of the Policy, namely, 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. /Kaya Köklü/ Kaya Köklü Sole Panelist Date: May 30, 2023
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy