WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

GAS Natural SDG, S.A. v. Super Dude

Case No. D2018-0595

1. The Parties

Complainant is GAS Natural SDG, S.A. of Barcelona, Spain, represented by Herrero & Asociados, Spain.

Respondent is Super Dude of Abuja, Nigeria.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <gasnaturaflenosa.com> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 16, 2018. On March 19, 2018, the Center transmitted by e-mail to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 20, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by e-mail to the Center its verification response confirming that 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, Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 21, 2018.

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 March 23, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 12, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on April 13, 2018.

The Center appointed Lynda J. Zadra-Symes as the sole panelist in this matter on April 18, 2018. 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.

On April 30, 2018, the Center granted the Panel’s request for an extension until May 11, 2018, to complete the Decision.

4. Factual Background

Complainant is a multinational group involved in gas and electricity integration operating in more than 30 countries. Complainant employs more than 17,000 people, over 50% of whom work outside Spain.

Complainant operates in the entire gas value chain, from exploration to distribution and marketing, including production, liquefaction and transport. Complainant is an important player in Africa and the leader in the sale of natural gas in the Iberian Peninsula and is the main supplier of liquefied natural gas in the Mediterranean and Atlantic basis. Complainant also has a strong presence in the energy markets of Spain, Angola, Kenya, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria and South Africa as well as Latin America.

Complainant’s mark GAS NATURAL FENOSA has been recognized by the Spanish Leading Brands of Spain Forum (FMRE).

Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations including the mark GAS NATURAL FENOSA in Spain, the European Union and many other jurisdictions. For example, Spanish trademark no. M2925498 GAS NATURAL FENOSA (word), registered on August 2, 2010. In addition, Complainant owns the domain names <gasnatural-fenosa.com>, <gasnaturalfenosa.com>, <gasnaturalfenosa.es>, <unionfenosadistribucion.com>, <gasnaturaldistribucion.com> and <fundaciongasnaturalfenosa.org>.

The disputed domain name was registered on January 25, 2018 and does not resolve to an active website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

In order to succeed in its claim, Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this 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.”

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has demonstrated that it owns rights in the trademark GAS NATURAL FENOSA. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s trademark in its entirety. The addition of the letter “l” in the term “flenosa” and omission of the letter “l” in “natural” are examples of “typosquatting” and are insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant contends that Respondent, who registered the disputed domain name under the alias “Super Dude,” is not a licensee or authorized user of Complainant’s mark and has never had a business relationship with Complainant. Complainant further contends that it has not authorized Respondent to register the disputed domain name.

Complainant has found no evidence that Respondent is using the disputed domain name as a company name or has any other legal rights in the name. Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent’s website at the disputed domain does not include any substantive content. Searching for “gas natural flenosa” on “www.google.com” results in search findings listing only Complainant’s websites or referencing Complainant.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states circumstances which, if found, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith:

“(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’s website or other on line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location.”

Respondent was clearly aware of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of registering the disputed domain name. Complainant’s mark is well-known, and it is highly likely that the strong recognition in Complainant’s mark motivated Respondent to register the disputed domain name, which is virtually identical to Complainant’s mark, except for two typos.

Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name fails to evidence any bona fide use and is not supported by any valid trademark. These facts are indicative of bad faith in the sense of paragraph 4(b) of the Policy.

The Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used 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 <gasnaturaflenosa.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Lynda J. Zadra-Symes
Sole Panelist
Date: May 10, 2018