ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Areva S.A. v. Name Redacted Case No. D2024-0111 1. The Parties The Complainant is Areva S.A., France, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden. The Respondent is Name Redacted0F1. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Ligne Web Services SARL (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 11, 2024. On January 12, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 12, 2024, 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 (N/A) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 19, 2024, 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 January 23, 2024. On January 19, 2024, the Center informed the parties in French and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is French. On January 23, 2024, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission. 1 The Respondent appears to have used the name of a third party when registering the disputed domain name. In light of the potential identity theft, the Panel has redacted the Respondent’s name from this decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain name, which includes the name of the Respondent. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding and has indicated Annex 1 to this decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST- 12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788.
page 2 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 both in English and French, and the proceedings commenced on February 2, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 22, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 23, 2024. The Center appointed Elise Dufour as the sole panelist in this matter on February 27, 2024. 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 AREVA a French multinational group specializing in nuclear power and renewable energy. The Complainant is the owner of numerous AREVA trademark registrations, including: - the French Trademark registration A AREVA & logo No. 3591412 registered on January 2, 2009; - the European Union Trademark registration AREVA No. 002478840 registered on October 29, 2004; - the International Trademark registration AREVA No. 783282 registered on November 28, 2001. The Complainant is also the owner of many domain names and of over 165 domain names which incorporate the Complainant’s trademarks AREVA. The disputed domain name was registered on March 28, 2022. It resolves to a blank page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the AREVA trademark in which the Complainant has rights as the disputed domain name incorporates the exact AREVA trademark with the addition of a hyphen “-” and the term “sa” before the AREVA trademark and this does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant in any way. The Complainant asserts that is has not licensed, authorized, or permitted the Respondent to register domain names incorporating the Complainant’s trademark. In addition, the Complainant asserts the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name as it is inactive. In addition, the Complainant demonstrates the Respondent’s effort to pass itself off as one of the Complainant’s partner’s employee. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark. As per the use of the disputed domain name, for the Complainant, the passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent constitutes bad faith. For
page 3 the Complainant, the combined following circumstances implies that the passive use of the disputed domain name should be considered as bad faith use: (i) The domain name incorporates the reproduction of the Complainant’s well-known trademark; (ii) The domain name aims specifically the Complainant as the added hyphen and word “sa” proves intent to cause confusion, mistake and deception with the Complainant’s trademark; (iii) the Respondent has ignored the Complainant’s attempts to resolve this dispute amicably; (iv) the disputed domain name’s mail exchanges (“MX”) servers are activated which could imply fraudulent use for phishing or scamming activities; and (v) the Respondent attempted to conceal its true identity and used one of the Complainant’s partner’s employee’s identity . B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Language of the Proceeding The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is French. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for several reasons, including the fact that : 1. Translation of the Complaint would unfairly disadvantage and burden the Complainant and delay the proceedings and adjudication of this matter; 2. Such additional delay, considering the obviously abusive nature of the disputed domain name poses continuing risk to the Complainant; 3. The term AREVA, which is the dominant portion of the disputed domain name, does not carry any specific meaning in the French language; 4. the Complainant previously sent a cease-and-desist letters to the Respondent, and the Respondent had ample time and opportunity to respond to such letter and request that communications continue in French. The Respondent neither issued such a request nor responded to the Complainant in any matter whatsoever. 5. It would unduly burden the Complainant to have to arrange and pay for translation where the Respondent has demonstrated behavior that disrupts the Complainant’s business and has already required the Complainant to devote significant time and resources to addressing this instance of abuse. The Respondent did not make any specific submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding. In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.1). Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English.
page 4 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 the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. 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 entirety of the Complainant’s trademark is reproduced within the disputed domain name, simply added by a hyphen and the letters “sa”. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.7 and 1.8. 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 or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although 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 difficult 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 (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). 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 available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights 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 such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity here, claimed as applicable to this case: impersonation/passing off can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. Moreover, the Panel has noted that the Respondent so far has neither used the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair purpose, but rather passively held it instead. UDRP panels, however, have found that the mere registration of a domain name does not by itself automatically confer rights or legitimate interests therein (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.10.1). 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 5 In the present case, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s well-known trademark. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith in the circumstances of this proceeding. Although panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, and (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement). WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, the composition of the disputed domain name, and the impersonation of one of the Complainant’s employees in the Respondent’s contact details and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. 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. /Elise Dufour/ Elise Dufour Sole Panelist Date: March 12, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy