ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Euronext N.V. v. erx erx Case No. D2023-4834 1. The Parties The Complainant is Euronext N.V., Netherlands (Kingdom of the), represented by LegalMatters.com B.V., Netherlands (Kingdom of the). The Respondent is erx erx, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name (the "Domain Name") is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on November 21, 2023. On November 21, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 23, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (Gname.com Pte. Ltd.) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 23, 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 amended Complaint on November 24, 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 November 30, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 20, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on December 22, 2023. page 2 The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on January 3, 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 to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant operates regulated exchanges in Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands (Kingdom of the), Norway and Portugal. Its total product offering includes Equities, FX, Exchange Traded Funds, Warrants & Certificates, Bonds, Derivatives, Commodities and Indices. The Complainant provides a multiasset clearing house through Euronext Clearing, and custody and settlement services through Euronext Securities central securities depositories in Denmark, Italy, Norway and Portugal. The Complainant also leverages its expertise in running markets by providing technology and managed services to third parties. The Complainant has numerous trademark registrations for EURONEXT, such as EU registration No. 013343629 and UK registration No. UK00913343629, both registered on March 3, 2015. The Domain Name was registered on October 17, 2023. The Complainant has documented that the Domain Name and its subdomain have resolved to a website using the Complainant's trademark. The Respondent's website has offered Internet users to create an account and log in to websites offering financial activities in the field of crypto trading and crypto depositing. At the time of drafting the Decision, the Domain Name resolved to an error page. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant provides evidence of trademark registrations and contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark EURONEXT as the Domain Name incorporates the entire trademark. The additional letter "x" does not change that the Domain Name is visually and phonetically highly similar to the Complainant's earlier trademark. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and has not been authorized to use the Complainant's trademark. Furthermore, the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. The Respondent's use is not made with bona fide intent. The Complainant believes the Respondent was or should have been aware that it incorporated a trademark well-known in the financial market. It is evident from the use of the Domain Name that the Respondent knew of the Complainant. The Respondent has registered the Domain Name in bad faith and is pretending to be the Complainant, for the sole purpose to attract Internet users for commercial gain by intentionally infringing the Complainant's exclusive rights. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar 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 the Complainant's trademark and the Domain Name. Where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 1.7. The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark EURONEXT. In this case, the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant's trademark with the addition of "x". The addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the trademark. For the purpose of assessing under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel may ignore the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD"); WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, 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. Based on the evidence, the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired trademark rights. There is no evidence of the Respondent's 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. On the contrary, the Respondent's use of the Domain Name is evidence of bad faith, see below. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. 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. The Respondent knew of the Complainant when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. It is evident from the composition and use of the Domain Name. The Respondent has not offered any explanation to why it registered a Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. Based on the evidence in the case file, the Panel concludes that the Respondent in bad faith has tried to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant. page 4 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders the Domain Name transferred to the Complainant. /Mathias Lilleengen/ Mathias Lilleengen Sole Panelist Date: January 15, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy