ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION iptiQ Group Holding Ltd v. JIAFAN YAN Case No. D2024-1329 1. The Parties The Complainant is iptiQ Group Holding Ltd, Switzerland, represented by TIMES Attorneys, Switzerland. The Respondent is JIAFAN YAN, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 28, 2024. On March 28, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 28, 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 (“Withheld for Privacy ehf”) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 2, 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 amendment to the Complaint on April 3, 2024. 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 April 4, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 24, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 26, 2024. The Center appointed Tuukka Airaksinen as the sole panelist in this matter on May 2, 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.
page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a digital insurance company, part of the Swiss Re Group, a leading provider of reinsurance, insurance, and financial services. The Complainant is the owner of the trademark IPTIQ, which is registered, for example, as the International Registration No 1567521 with effect in Australia, New Zealand, and United Kingdom. The disputed domain name was registered on December 2, 2023. The disputed domain name resolves to an error page. The disputed domain name does have active MX-records, which means that it can be used for sending emails. The Respondent has been involved as a respondent in four prior UDRP proceedings, which were all decided in favor of the complainants. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s trademark as a whole, without any additional elements. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use or register its trademark or the disputed domain name. The Complainant is not affiliated with the Respondent. The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its trademark when registering the disputed domain name and the Respondent is holding the disputed domain name passively. It is obvious that the Respondent has attempted to benefit from the Complainant’s reputation to deceive customers about the connection with the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 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 of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“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 mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical with the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.
page 3 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. Furthermore, UDRP panels have found that domain names identical to a complainant’s trademark carry a high risk of implied affiliation. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent must have had knowledge of the Complainant when registering the disputed domain name considering that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark, which is a fanciful term without meaning other than as a trademark for the Complainant’s services. The Complainant has shown that the Respondent was subject to prior UDRP proceedings wherein it was found that the Respondent had registered the relevant domain names in bad faith (see, for instance, Arcadis N.V. v. JIAFAN YAN, WIPO Case No. D2023-3174; C F E B SISLEY v. Jiafan Yan, WIPO Case No. D2023-0290; C F E B Sisley v. Jiafan Yan, WIPO Case No. D2023-0292; Philip Morris Products S.A. v. Jiafan Yan, WIPO Case No. D2021-3451). Hence, the Panel find that the Respondent has acted in a pattern of bad faith conduct. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.2. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. 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).
page 4 WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain name, 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 that the Complainant has established the third element 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. /Tuukka Airaksinen/ Tuukka Airaksinen Sole Panelist Date: May 16, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy