ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION GIE AG2R v. 卢志淘 Case No. D2024-4684 1. The Parties Complainant is GIE AG2R, France, represented by Scan Avocats AARPI, France. Respondent is 卢志淘, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name
is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 13, 2024. On November 14, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 15, 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 (Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on November 15, 2024, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 19, 2024. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 20, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 10, 2024. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on December 11, 2024.
page 2 The Center appointed Stephanie G. Hartung as the sole panelist in this matter on December 13, 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 Complainant is a company organized under the laws of France that is active in the insurance industry. Complainant has provided evidence that it is the registered owner of various trademarks relating to its company name and brand AG2R, including, but not limited to, the following: - word trademark AG2R, French registration (INPI), registration number: 4914383, registration date: November 18, 2022, status: active; - word/device trademark AG2R LA MONDIALE, European Union registration (EUIPO), registration number: 008261166, registration date: March 1, 2010, status: active. Moreover, Complainant has demonstrated to own several domain names relating to its AG2R and AG2R LA MONDIALE trademarks, inter alia, since 2000 the domain name and since 2007 the domain names and ; the latter resolve to Complainant’s official website at “www.ag2rlamondiale.fr”, used to promote Complainant’s products and related services in the insurance industry. Respondent, according to the Registrar verification, is located in China. The disputed domain name was registered on March 10, 2024. It resolves to a website at “www.ag2rcet.com” set up in the Chinese language which displays pornographic content for some commercial gain. Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, Complainant contends that its history goes back to 1905 and that it is, therefore, a major actor in the field of insurance and pension management in France since more than 115 years, with nowadays more than 12 million policyholders, more than 383,000 corporate clients and more than 10,000 expert employees. Both of Complainant’s trademarks AG2R and AG2R LA MONDIALE have been intensely used in the past and are meanwhile well known. As part of its range of services, Complainant provides a “Compte Epargne Temps” (French for “Time Savings Account”), which is known by the acronym “CET”. Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AG2R and AG2R LA MONDIALE trademarks, as it reproduces the distinctive part “ag2r” entirely, with the mere addition of the letters “cet” which directly refer to Complainant’s insurance services named “CET”. Moreover, Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since (1) Respondent is not in any way related to Complainant’s business, and it has not been licensed, contracted or otherwise permitted by Complainant in any way to use its prior AG2R trademarks or to register any domain names incorporating such trademarks, (2) Respondent is not known under the term “ag2r” and does not own any trademark rights under such name, and (3) the use of the disputed domain name to redirect to pornographic contents does not constitute a bona fide use of the disputed domain name. Finally, Complainant argues that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith since (1) Complainant’s AG2R and AG2R LA MONDIALE trademarks and related domain names are
page 3 well-known and were registered many years before the disputed domain name, (2) Respondent, therefore, could not have been unaware of Complainant’s prior trademarks and domain names when it registered and used the disputed domain name, (3) any search for the term “ag2rcet” conducted with a search engine such as Google leads in the first place to websites relating to Complainant and its activities, and (4) the current use of the disputed domain name to redirect to a pornographic website confirms Respondent’s bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Complainant carries the burden of proving: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent's default in the case at hand does not automatically result in a decision in favor of Complainant, however, paragraph 5(f) of the Rules provides that if Respondent does not submit a response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute solely based upon the Complaint. Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to submit a Response as it considers appropriate. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar First, 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 Complainant’s AG2R and AG2R LA MONDIALE trademarks and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. Complainant has shown rights in respect of its AG2R and AG2R LA MONDIALE trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. Also, the entirety of the AG2R trademark and the distinctive part of the AG2R LA MONDIALE trademark is reproduced within the disputed domain name, simply added by the term “cet”. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is at least confusingly similar to Complainant’s AG2R and AG2R LA MONDIALE trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms (here, the term “cet”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s AG2R and AG2R LA MONDIALE trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel, therefore, finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Second, paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which 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
page 4 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 Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not rebutted 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. In particular, Respondent has neither been granted a license nor has it been otherwise authorized by Complainant to use its AG2R and AG2R LA MONDIALE trademarks, either as a domain name or in any other way. Also, there is no reason to believe that Respondent’s name somehow corresponds with the disputed domain name, and Respondent does not appear to have any trademark rights associated with the terms “ag2r” and/or “cet” on its own. Finally, the disputed domain name, which is at least confusingly similar to Complainant’s well-known AG2R and AG2R LA MONDIALE trademarks and also includes the term “cet” which is directly targeting Complainant’s insurance services named “CET”, resolves to a commercially active website at “www.ag2rcet.com” set up in the Chinese language which displays pornographic content for some commercial gain. Such use of the disputed domain name, which obviously aims at somehow profiting from the reputation connected to Complainant’s undisputedly well-known AG2R and AG2R LA MONDIALE trademarks, neither qualifies as bona fide nor as legitimate noncommercial or fair within the meaning of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. The Panel, therefore, finds the second element of the Policy has been established, too. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Third, 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 facts to this case allow to conclude that Respondent was well aware of Complainant’s rights in the AG2R and AG2R LA MONDIALE trademarks when registering the disputed domain name and that the latter is clearly directed thereto. Not only are Complainant’s trademarks undisputedly well-known. Also, the combination of the term “ag2r” (which is the distinctive part of Complainant’s trademarks) and the term “cet” (which is the acronym of Complainant’s insurance service “Compte Epargne Temps” (French for “Time Savings Account”)) is directly targeting at Complainant and its business in the insurance industry. In turn, those terms lack any direct or indirect connection to pornographic content as it has been put in place by Respondent on the website under the disputed domain name. Such circumstances are clear enough indications for this Panel that – absent any other indication as to why Respondent needed to rely on Complainant’s well-known reputed AG2R and AG2R LA MONDIALE trademarks which are fully or partially reflected in the disputed domain name – Respondent obviously aimed at somehow taking unfair advantage of Complainant’s trademarks, and, more concretely, intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its own website by creating a likelihood of confusion with those trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website, and so serve as evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. In connection with this finding, it also carries weight in the eyes of the Panel that Respondent obviously provided false or incomplete contact information in the WhoIs register for the disputed domain name since, according to the email correspondence between the Center and the postal courier service, the Written Notice on the Notification of Complaint dated November 20, 2024, could not be delivered. This fact at least throws a light on Respondent’s behavior which supports the Panel’s bad faith finding.
page 5 The Panel, therefore, finds that Complainant has established the third element of the Policy, too. 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 Complainant. /Stephanie G. Hartung/ Stephanie G. Hartung Sole Panelist Date: December 16, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy