The Complainant is "Belfius Banque" en Néerlandais "Belfius Bank", Société anonyme / Naamloze Vennootschap of Brussels, Belgium, represented by NautaDutilh BVBA/SPRL, Belgium.
The Respondent is Ellen Willy-Herma of Uithoorn, Netherlands. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with .NU Domain Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 18, 2013. On March 19, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 19, 2013, 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. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 25, 2013.
On March 21, 2013, the Center received an email communication from the technical contact of the disputed domain name indicating the disputed domain name had been cancelled. On the same day, the Center sent an email communication to the Registrar regarding the status of the disputed domain name. The Registrar confirmed shortly that the disputed domain name has been paid to November 6, 2013 and will remain locked during the pending proceeding.
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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 26, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 15, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 16, 2013.
The Center appointed Johan Sjöbeck as the sole panelist in this matter on April 18, 2013. 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 has submitted evidence that it is the owner of the following registered trademarks:
Community trademark BELFIUS with registration No. 10581205 and registration date May 24, 2012 for goods in classes 9 and 16 and services in classes 35, 36, 41 and 45.
Benelux trademark BELFIUS with registration No. 914650 and registration date May 10, 2012 for goods in classes 9 and 16 and services in classes 35, 36, 41 and 45.
Benelux trademark BELFIUS registration No. 915962 and registration date June 11, 2012 for goods in classes 9 and 16 and services in classes 35, 36, 41 and 45.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on November 6, 2012. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant is a major Belgian bank. In early 2012, the Complainant changed its previous name Dexia into Belfius. The Complainant is the proprietor of the registered trademark BELFIUS and uses the domain name .
The disputed domain name is made of the combination of the Complainant's BELFIUS trademark and the generic term "service", so as to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark and bank services.
The Respondent has no right or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no authorization from the Complainant to use the BELFIUS trademark. In addition, the Respondent is not engaged in any business which would require using the BELFIUS trademark. In other words, the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name without having any "service" in connection with the Complainant. To the contrary, it has been demonstrated that the disputed domain name is used by the Respondent for phishing purposes. The Brussels University IT department has secured evidence indicating that the email address […]@ is used for sending fraudulous messages allegedly originating from "Belfius Bank". Phishing is a typical instance of registration and use in bad faith. See Google, Inc. v. Robert Takovich,WIPO Case No. DMX2012-0006.
The Respondent intentionally attempts to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's BELFIUS trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent's website or location or service on the Respondent's website or location. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is, according to the submitted evidence, the owner of the registered trademark BELFIUS. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark BELFIUS in its entirety with the addition of a hyphen and the descriptive term “service”.
The Panel agrees with the Complainant’s contention that the ability for such a generic word to distinguish the disputed domain name from the trademark of the Complainant is very limited.
Having the above in mind, it is the opinion of this Panel that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark BELFIUS and that the Complainant has proved the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant must show that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name. The Respondent may establish a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name by demonstrating in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy any of the following:
(a) that it has made preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to the dispute; or
(b) that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if it has not acquired any trademark rights; or
(c) that it intends to make a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark.
The Complainant’s trademark registrations for BELFIUS predate the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name . The Complainant has not licensed, approved or in any way consented to the Respondent’s registration and use of the trademark in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant has submitted evidence indicating that the disputed domain name is used for a phishing scheme. Thus, the Respondent is not making a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark.
In addition to the above, the record indicates that the Respondent may have requested to have the disputed domain name cancelled.
Although given the opportunity, the Respondent has not submitted any evidence in this case to demonstrate that the Respondent is the owner of any trademark rights similar to the disputed domain name or that the Respondent is or has been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
By not submitting a response, the Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Thus, there is no evidence in the case that refutes the Complainant’s submissions, and the Panel concludes that the Complainant has also proved the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, evidence of bad faith registration and use include without limitation:
(i) circumstances indicating the disputed domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to the owner of a trademark or to a competitor of the trademark owner, for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or
(ii) circumstances indicating that the disputed domain name was registered in order to prevent the owner of a trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided there is a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) circumstances indicating that the disputed domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) circumstances indicating that the disputed domain name has intentionally been used in an attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on that website or location.
As previously mentioned, the Complainant has submitted evidence demonstrating that the Respondent appears to use the disputed domain name in a phishing scheme with the intention of defrauding consumers into revealing personal and/or proprietary information. The submitted evidence demonstrates that the Respondent has attempted to pass itself of as the Complainant the public. There is no evidence indicating that the disputed domain name is used for any type of legitimate business or service.
Thus, the evidence in the case before the Panel demonstrates that the disputed domain name has intentionally been used in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the websites or of a product or service on the website.
The Panel finds, in the absence of contrary evidence, that the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant’s trademark at the time the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name.
There is no evidence in the case that refutes the Complainant’s submissions.
The Complainant has proved the requirements under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy and that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. Therefore the Panel concludes that the Complainant has also proved the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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.
Johan Sjöbeck
Sole Panelist
Date: April 24, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy