ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION G4S Limited v. Ana Cristina Santos Case No. D2023-1760 1. The Parties The Complainant is G4S Limited, United Kingdom, represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom. The Respondent is Ana Cristina Santos, Colombia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Arsys Internet, S.L. dba NICLINE.COM (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on April 20, 2023. On April 20, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 25, 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 (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 25, 2023, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. On the same day, the Center requested the Complainant to clarify the language of the proceeding. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on May 3, 2023, and the Complainant requested English as the language of the proceeding. 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 May 3, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 23, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on May 31, 2023. The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on June 5, 2023. The Panel finds page 2 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. The Panel has not received any requests from the Complainant or the Respondent regarding further submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information from the Parties. Having reviewed the communication records in the case file provided by the Center, the Panel finds that the Center has discharged its responsibility under the Rules, paragraph 2(a), "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent". Therefore, the Panel shall issue its Decision based upon the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules, and the Supplemental Rules, and without the benefit of a response from the Respondent. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is G4S Limited, a United Kingdom company operating in the security and facility services field and owning several trademark registrations for G4S, among which: - International Trademark Registration No. 885912 for G4S, registered on October 11, 2005; - United States of America Trademark Registration No. 3,378,800 for G4S, registered on February 5, 2008; - European Union Trademark Registration No. 015263064 for G4S, registered on September 20, 2016. The Complainant has an important presence in Colombia, which represents its second-largest market in South America. The Complainant also operates on the Internet, its main website being "www.g4s.com". The Complainant provided evidence in support of the above. According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on September 19, 2022, and it is inactive. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark G4S, as the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant's trademark, with the addition of the geographical identifier "colombia" separated by a hyphen. Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, since it has not been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name or to use its trademark within the disputed domain name, it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and it is not making either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, since the Complainant's trademark G4S is distinctive and well known in the security and facility services field. Therefore, the Respondent targeted the Complainant's trademark at the time of registration of the disputed page 3 domain name and the Complainant contends that the passive holding of the disputed domain name qualifies as bad faith registration and use. Finally, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is engaged in a pattern of registering other abusive domain name registrations. B. Respondent The Respondent has made no reply to the Complainant's contentions and is in default. In reference to paragraphs 5(f) and 14 of the Rules, no exceptional circumstances explaining the default have been put forward or are apparent from the record. A respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding under the Policy, but if it fails to do so, reasonable facts asserted by a complainant may be taken as true, and appropriate inferences, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, may be drawn. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 4.3. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language of Proceeding According to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the Panel decides that the language of the proceeding will be English. The language of the Registration Agreement of the disputed domain name is Spanish. The Complainant has requested English to be the language of the proceeding since the Complainant is from United Kingdom and the Respondent has registered other domain names comprising generic or descriptive English words. The Panel finds that it would be not only unnecessary but also unfair, both economically and timewise, to request the Complainant to translate the Complaint. Furthermore, the Respondent did not comment to the Complainant's request to use English. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.5.1. 6.2 Substantive Issues Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed: (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 The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark G4S and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark G4S. Regarding the addition of the term "colombia" and a hyphen, the Panel notes that it is now well established that the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical terms, letters, or otherwise) to a domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark. The addition of the term "colombia" and a hyphen does not therefore prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. It is also well accepted that a generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD"), in this case ".com", is typically ignored page 4 when assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1. The Panel finds that the Complainant has therefore met its burden of proving that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by demonstrating in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation: "(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue." According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of proving the three elements of the Policy. However, satisfying the burden of proving a lack of the Respondent's rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name according to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is potentially quite difficult, since proving a negative circumstance is generally more complicated than establishing a positive one. As such, it is well accepted that it is sufficient for the Complainant to make a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to shift the burden of production to the Respondent. If the Respondent fails to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or on any other basis, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. The Complainant in its Complaint, and as set out above, has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It asserts that the Respondent, who is not currently associated with the Complainant in any way, is not using the disputed domain name for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use or in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The prima facie case presented by the Complainant is enough to shift the burden of production to the Respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not presented any evidence of any rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain name, and the Panel is unable to establish any such rights or legitimate interests on the basis of the evidence in front of it. Moreover, the Panel finds that the composition of the disputed domain name carries a high risk of implied affiliation. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that "[f]or the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the following page 5 circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered or [has] 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 the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [its] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) [the respondent has] 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) [the respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent's] website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [the respondent's] web site or location". Regarding the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name, the reputation of the Complainant's trademark G4S in the security and facility services field is clearly established and the Panel finds that the Respondent likely knew of the Complainant, and deliberately registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. As regards the use in bad faith of the disputed domain name, which resolves to an inactive website, the Panel considers that bad faith may exist even in cases of so-called "passive holding", as found in the landmark UDRP decision Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. In the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that such passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. In support thereof, the Panel considers as relevant the notoriety of the Complainant's trademark in the security and facility services field, the Respondent's failure to formally participate, and the Respondent's use of a privacy service to mask its details in the publicly-available WhoIs. Furthermore, the Panel considers that the nature of the inherently misleading disputed domain name, which includes the Complainant's trademark in its entirety with the addition of the term "colombia", a country in which the Complainant has an important presence, further supports a finding of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. The Panel finds that the Complainant has presented evidence to satisfy its burden of proof with respect to the issue of whether the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, also taking into consideration the pattern of conduct of the Respondent in at least one other case of abusive domain name registration against the same Complainant, and, finally, the Panel notes that the Respondent did not participate in this proceeding. The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied. page 6 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. /Edoardo Fano/ Edoardo Fano Sole Panelist Date: June 12, 2023
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy