The Complainant is Flowbird SAS (Parkeon), France, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is Michael Nava, Domain Nerdz LLC, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 2, 2020. On December 2, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 4, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 4, 2020, 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 December 4, 2020. 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 December 4, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 24, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 28, 2020. The Center appointed Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira as the sole panelist in this matter on January 4, 2021. 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 French company that acts in the field of organizing and managing mobility within cities, under the mark PARKEON. The Complainant has been doing business for over 60 years, and was named Parkeon until recently. Details on the history and presence worldwide of the Complainant are displayed in Annexes 3 and 4 of the Complaint. The Complainant owns a considerable number of registrations for the PARKEON trademark throughout the world, among which are a French registration granted on October 22, 2003 (Reg. No. 3254163), and an International trademark registered on February 25, 2004 (Reg. No. 828640) designating the United States. A sample proof of these registrations is attached to the Complaint as Annex 5. The Complainant also holds the domain name The Complainant has established rights over the mark PARKEON internationally. The disputed domain name was registered on November 13, 2020. At the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website where it was offered for sale. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant is the owner of registrations worldwide for the mark PARKEON, which has been in use worldwide for decades. The Complainant has been in business for over 60 years and provides services that simplify the organization and management of cities. Trademark PARKEON is not a dictionary word; it has no meaning in any existing language. The disputed domain name is exclusively formed with the Complainant’s PARKEON mark, which is inherently distinctive, and recognizable within the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a page where it is offered for sale for USD 1,988, as shows Annex 7 of the Complaint. Further, the Complainant alleges that there is no coincidence in the adoption of the disputed domain name, being identical to the Complainant’s trademark, and thus it is likely that Respondent targeted the Complainant and the choice was a pretext for commercial advantage. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings The Policy, in its paragraph 4(a), determines that three elements must be presented and duly proven by a complainant to obtain relief. These elements are: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name The Complainant has presented consistent evidence of ownership of the trademark PARKEON in jurisdictions throughout the world, by presenting international registrations for it, as well as comprehensive evidence of the use of the trademark. Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the PARKEON mark relied upon in the Complaint. The “.co” extension in the disputed domain name is viewed as standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element. The Complainant has therefore satisfied its burden of proof for this element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests There is clear evidence that the trademark PARKEON is registered in the Complainant’s name and is widely known as identifying the Complainant’s activities, and that the Complainant has not licensed this to the Respondent. Furthermore, the Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the disputed domain name. It has also been shown that the Respondent is not making any direct use of the disputed domain name, noting the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website, but to one where the disputed domain name is offered for sale for USD 1,988. The Respondent is not making a noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In the absence of a Response, the Respondent has not rebutted such prima facie case. The Panel, thus, finds for the Complainant under the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant’s trademark is recognized as being well known in the industry in which the company does business. In this Panel’s view, the Respondent was likely aware of the Complainant’s rights in the PARKEON mark at the time the disputed domain name was registered. The facts in this case indicate that such registration was made in bad faith. The disputed domain name was registered to obtain unlawful profit - the disputed domain name is parked with DAN.com where the disputed domain name is offered for sale. The Panel notes the distinctive and well-known nature of the Complainant’s trademark PARKEON, the failure of the Respondent to submit a Response, and the implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain name may be put support a finding of bad faith. The Panel finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intention of improperly obtaining benefits and harming the Complainant’s reputation in the market. In the totality of the circumstances, the Panel finds the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. 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, Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira
Sole Panelist
Date: January 18, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy