ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Compagnie financière Tradition SA v. cfx cfx, coin coin, malee malee Case No. D2024-4492 1. The Parties The Complainant is Compagnie financière Tradition SA, Switzerland, represented by Derriennic Associés, France. The Respondents are cfx cfx, coin coin, and malee malee, Hong Kong, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain names , , , and are registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 31, 2024. On October 31, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 1, 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 (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 4, 2024 with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrar, requesting the Complainant to either file separate complaints for the disputed domain names associated with different underlying registrants or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in fact the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint in English on November 8, 2024. On November 4, 2024, the Center informed the parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain names is Chinese. On November 6, 2024, the Complainant requested English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondents did not submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission.
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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 14, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 4, 2024. The Respondents did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on December 6, 2024. The Center appointed Deanna Wong Wai Man as the sole panelist in this matter on December 23, 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 a company headquartered in Switzerland and is active as an IDB (Inter Dealer Broker) on the international market. Present in 30 countries, the Complainant’s group employs over 2,400 people worldwide and provides intermediation services for a wide range of financial products (money markets, bond markets, interest rate, currency and credit derivatives, equities, equity derivatives, interest rate and index futures) and non-financial products (energy, environment and precious metals). The Complainant is listed on the SIX Swiss Exchange. The Complainant’s group also provides services to financial institutions and other professional traders in the capital markets. The Complainant owns an international trademark portfolio for the mark TRADITION, including but not limited to Swiss Trademark Registration Number 598499 for the TRADITION logo mark, registered on March 25, 2010, and International Trademark Registration Number 1042560 for the TRADITION logo mark, registered on June 7, 2010, designating jurisdictions including China and Singapore. The Complainant also has a strong online presence and is the owner of numerous domain names incorporating the TRADITION trademark (e.g., ). The disputed domain names were registered by the Respondents years after the registration dates of the abovementioned trademarks, namely between October 31, 2023 and March 18, 2024. Particularly, the disputed domain names and were registered on October 31, 2023, the disputed domain name was registered on December 27, 2023, and the disputed domain name was registered on March 18, 2024. According to the Complainant’s evidence, two of the disputed domain names (i.e., and ) directed to identical imposter websites, which all reproduced the Complainant’s registered trademarks, and which offered Internet users trading services in commodities, including cryptocurrencies, and the other two disputed domain names (i.e., and ) directed to inactive websites. On the date of this Decision, the websites linked to the disputed domain names are inactive, except for which directs to a website hosted by the Registrar offering the domain name for sale. 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 names. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TRADITION marks, since they incorporate these marks or because these marks remain
page 3 recognizable in the disputed domain names. The Complainant also argues that the disputed domain names carry a serious risk of being involved in a fraudulent scheme, since they resolved to imposter websites, which offer trading services in commodities including cryptocurrencies to unsuspecting Internet users (including a concrete case where, allegedly, a specifically named individual based in Hong Kong complained to the Complainant about being defrauded in a scheme involving one of the disputed domain names). Furthermore, the Complainant essentially argues that the Respondents use the Complainant’s reputation to attract Internet users and sell fraudulent financial services. The Complainant essentially contends that such use cannot be considered as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use and that this use can only be fraudulent and indicates that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. B. Respondent The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Preliminary Issues A. Consolidation of the Respondents The amended Complaint was filed in relation to nominally different domain name registrants. The Complainant alleges that the domain name registrants are the same entity or mere alter egos of each other, or under common control. The Complainant requests the consolidation of the Complaint against the multiple disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules. The disputed domain name registrants did not comment on the Complainant’s request. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. In addressing the Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2. As regards common control, the Panel notes that the disputed domain names domain names all target the Complainant’s trademark TRADITION by using that trademark but adding in certain letters (e.g., “aps”, “me”, “us”), and in the case of , replacing a single letter by another letter (e.g., “n” by “m”) and adding letters “cfx”, thereby exposing a pattern; there are strong similarities and overlaps in the registration information for the disputed domain names including particularly in the registrant names, addresses, and phone numbers provided; all disputed domain names are registered with the same Registrar on the same date or dates with proximity; and the evidence reflects that at least the disputed domain names and were used to resolve to identical websites in English and all disputed domain names reproduced the Complainant’s TRADITION trademarks and were presumably used in the context of the same purported fraudulent scheme as claimed by the Complainant. As regards fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any Party and notes that the Respondents did not object to this consolidation. Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding.
page 4 B. Language of the Proceeding The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain names is Chinese. 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 and amended Complaint were filed in English and the Complainant requests that the language of the proceeding be English for several reasons, including the fact that the content and privacy notices on the websites to which the disputed domain names directed were in English, the fact that the disputed domain names are written in Latin letters and not in Chinese characters, and the fact that the Complainant is a Swiss company with French representatives in this proceeding. 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 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. 6.2 Discussion and Findings on the Merits 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 names, 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 Panel notes that the entirety of the Complainant’s mark is reproduced within the disputed domain names , , and , and, in the case of the disputed domain name , the Complainant’s mark remains clearly recognizable in this disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms or letters, here, the addition or omission of certain letters or acronyms (e.g., “aps”, “me”, “us”, “n”, and/or “mcfx”), may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition or omission of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. 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
page 5 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 names. 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. Moreover, upon review of the facts and evidence, the Panel notes that the Respondent has not provided any evidence of the use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, upon review of the facts and the evidence submitted in this proceeding, the Panel notes that the websites to which the disputed domain names and directed showed a clear intent on the part of the Respondent to misleadingly impersonate the Complainant for commercial gain by reproducing the Complainant’s TRADITION trademarks and using these websites in a purported fraudulent scheme. Panels have consistently held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity here, impersonation/passing off, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. Regarding and , the non-use of the disputed domain names would not confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Given the intensive use, reputation, and distinctiveness of the Complainant’s prior registered trademarks, the Panel finds that the subsequent registration of the disputed domain names, which are confusingly similar to such marks, clearly and consciously targeted the Complainant’s prior registered trademarks. This finding is further confirmed by the fact that the disputed domain names and resolved to active websites displaying the Complainant’s TRADITION trademarks, since this proves that the Respondent was fully aware of the existence of the Complainant, its prior marks, and its business. The Panel also notes that prior panels applying the Policy have recognized the Complainant’s rights in the TRADITION trademarks (see for instance Compagnie Financiere Tradition SA vs Franck Olivier, WIPO Case D2014-1032). The Panel therefore deduces from the Respondent’s efforts to consciously target the Complainant’s prior trademarks in a fraudulent scheme that the Respondent knew of the existence of the Complainant’s trademarks at the time of registering the disputed domain names. In the Panel’s view, the foregoing elements clearly indicate bad faith on the part of the Respondent, and the Panel therefore finds that it has been demonstrated that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith. As to use of the disputed domain names in bad faith, the Complainant provides evidence that the disputed domain names and , which were linked to active websites impersonating the Complainant and prominently reproducing the Complainant’s TRADITION trademarks, were involved in a purported fraudulent scheme for commercial gain. The Panel concludes from these facts that the Respondent has intentionally attracted Internet users for commercial gain to such websites, by creating consumer confusion between the websites associated with the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s trademarks. This constitutes direct evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel therefore finds that it has been demonstrated that the Respondent has used and is using these disputed domain names in bad faith. The non-use of the disputed domain names and does not prevent a finding of bad faith considering the totality of the circumstances.
page 6 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 names , , , and be transferred to the Complainant. /Deanna Wong Wai Man/ Deanna Wong Wai Man Sole Panelist Date: January 6, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy