Complainant is Alliander N.V., the Netherlands, represented by Merkenbureau Knijff & Partners B.V., the Netherlands.
Respondent is Whois.Guard, Inc, Panama / Niels vermeer, the Netherlands. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 25, 2021. On February 25, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On the same day, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on March 12, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on March 15, 2021. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 15, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 4, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on April 8, 2021. The Center appointed Dinant T. L. Oosterbaan as the sole panelist in this matter on April 30, 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 Complainant is an energy company operating in the Netherlands. According to the evidence submitted by Complainant, Complainant owns several registrations for the trademark LIANDER, including the International word trademark LIANDER, registration number 991396, date of registration October 10, 2008, and the International device trademark LIANDER, registration number 1193575, date of registration December 23, 2013. The Domain Name The trademark registrations of Complainant were issued prior to the registration of the Domain Name. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LIANDER trademarks as the Domain Name contains the element LIANDER which is identical to Complainant’s trademarks. According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Complainant submits that Respondent has no company name or trademark rights in the denomination “liander”. Complainant has not given a license to use the trademark rights. Moreover Complainant has not given consent to use the trademarks LIANDER. Complainant asserts that Respondent is using the Domain Name for “phishing practices” posing itself as a legitimate part of Complainant by defrauding an online account holder to provide sensitive personal information relating to bank accounts. Complainant submits that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. Complainant repeats that the Domain Name has been registered by Respondent for “phishing practices”, posing itself as part of Complainant by defrauding an online account holder to provide sensitive personal information relating to bank accounts. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the complainant proves each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the disputed domain name should be transferred or cancelled: (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. The Panel will proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in this proceeding. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must first of all establish rights in a trademark or service mark and secondly that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark or service mark. Complainant has established that it is the owner of several trademark registrations for LIANDER. The Domain Name The Panel finds that Complainant has proven that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests In the opinion of the Panel, Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use any of its trademarks or to register the Domain Name incorporating its trademarks. Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name with intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademarks of Complainant. Based on the evidence provided by Complainant, including a screenshot of the website to which the Domain Name resolved, the Domain Name resolved to a website which contained the LIANDER device trademark, and the following message in the Dutch language: “Om te controleren dat de bankrekening waar je het geld ontvangt ook echt van jou is vragen we je eenmalig een iDEAL betaling te doen” (translation: “In order to verify that the bank account on which you will receive the money is really yours, we ask you to make a one time payment using iDEAL”). Currently the Domain Name does not resolve to an active website. The Panel does not consider such use a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. In particular, Complainant provided evidence that Respondent has been using or intended to use the Domain Name as part of what Complainant suspects is a phishing scam in order to defraud Complainant’s customers through a fraudulent website using the Domain Name, which also cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. In addition, the website to which the Domain Name resolved did not accurately and prominently disclose the lack of relationship between Respondent and Complainant as the holder of the LIANDER trademarks, in particular as there has never been any business relationship between Complainant and Respondent. Respondent is also not commonly known by the Domain Name nor has Respondent acquired any trademark or service mark rights. Moreover, the Domain Name currently resolves to a website which mentions that the site cannot be reached. Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The trademarks of Complainant have been in existence for many years. Respondent knew or should have known that the Domain Name included Complainant’s well-known LIANDER trademarks. The Panel notes that Respondent’s prior use of the website at the Domain Name which incorporates Complainant’s trademarks in its entirety indicates that Respondent possibly registered the Domain Name with the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the trademarks of Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a service on its website or location, as per paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Furthermore, the Panel accepts Complainant’s undisputed submission that bad faith registration and use of the Domain Name is indicated by the fact that there is strong suspicion of Respondent has been using or intended to use the Domain Name in a phishing scam in order to defraud Complainant’s customers. The Panel adds that the current passive holding of the website does not prevent the Panel from finding registration and use 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 Domain Name Dinant T. L. Oosterbaan
Sole Panelist
Date: May 14, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy