WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

EUROP ASSISTANCE HOLDING v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot

Case No. D2019-2156

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Europ Assistance Holding, France, represented by Cabinet Lavoix, France.

The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States of America (“United States”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <europassistance.info> is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 4, 2019. On September 4, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 5, 2019, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 6, 2019 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 September 9, 2019.

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 September 13, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 3, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 8, 2019.

The Center appointed Mihaela Maravela as the sole panelist in this matter on October 24, 2019. 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 the exclusive owner of a number of registered trademarks consisting of the words EUROP-ASSISTANCE in various jurisdictions throughout the world, including the following:

- the International Trademark for EUROP-ASSISTANCE, with registration number 272559, registered on August 2, 1963;

- the French trademark EUROP-ASSISTANCE, with registration number 1501308, registered on April 28, 1988;

- the United States Trademark EUROP-ASSISTANCE, with registration number 1023406, registered on October 21, 1975.

The disputed domain name was registered on February 10, 2019. According to the unrebutted evidence put forward by the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolved at the date of the Complaint to a website informing the users that they won a mobile phone website. At the date of this decision the disputed domain name redirects to a website with advertising links for various services that appear to be in competition with and related to the Complainant’s products.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks as it identically reproduces the verbal element of its EUROP-ASSISTANCE trademarks. Also, the presence of the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.info” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademarks.

Further, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor it is authorized to use the Complainant’s trademarks. Moreover, the Complainant contends it found no evidence of any of the three nonexclusive methods by which the Respondent can show it has rights or legitimate interests over the disputed domain name; rather, the disputed domain name is used for redirecting the users on malicious website informing the users that they won a mobile phone.

In addition, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith since the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract in a malicious way for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s 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 Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location. According to the Complainant, the Respondent abuses the image and the relationship of trust existing between the Complainant and its clients looking for online information about the Complainant. The Complainant argues that the Internet users are rerouted to a fraudulent website making believe the gain of a phone and that this kind of site abuses the trust of users by trying to extract personal information (phishing).

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Notwithstanding the fact that no Response has been filed, the Panel shall consider the issues present in the case based on the statements and documents submitted by the Complainant.

“A Panel shall 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 15(a) of the Rules.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following elements:

(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 respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant must establish that it has a trademark or service mark and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark or service mark for the Complainant to succeed.

Given the evidence put forward by the Complainant, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has proved its rights over the EUROP-ASSISTANCE trademark.

The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark EUROP-ASSISTANCE in its entirety and differs from the said trademark only by the removal of the hyphen between the words “europ” and “assistance”. The mere removal of such a punctuation mark does not dispel confusing similarity. See for a similar finding Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited v. Lazarus Essulat, WIPO Case No. D2005-1161.

It is well accepted by UDRP panels that a gTLD, such as “.info”, is typically ignored when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusing similar to a trademark.

This Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and therefore finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any of the following circumstances, if found by the Panel, may demonstrate the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name:

(i) before any notice to it of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable 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; or

(ii) the respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

The consensus view of UDRP panels on the burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is summarized in section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), which states: “[…] where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or 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. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element”.

In the present case the Complainant has established a prima facie case that it holds rights over the trademark EUROP-ASSISTANCE and claims that the Respondent has no legitimate reason to acquire and use the disputed domain name.

There is no evidence that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, according to the unrebutted evidence put forward by the Complainant, at the date of the Complaint the Respondent was using the disputed domain name for redirecting the users on a website informing the users that they won a mobile phone; the Complainant’s unrebutted contention is that the purpose of such scheme is the obtaining of personal data. Such use does not confer in the Panel’s view rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See also Red Bull GmbH v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Shu Lin, WIPO Case No. D2016-1121.

Furthermore, at the date of this decision, the disputed domain name is used to host a parked page comprising pay-per-click (“PPC”) links to competing services. According to section 2.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. “Applying UDRP paragraph 4(c), panels have found that the use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s mark or otherwise mislead Internet users”. In this case, the PPC links are related to the Complainant’s trademark EUROP-ASSISTANCE and generate search results with competing services to those offered by the Complainant. In this Panel’s view, such use does not confer rights or legitimate interests to the Respondent. For a similar finding see F5 Networks, Inc. v. Domain Administrator, c/o Whois Watchdog, WIPO Case No. D2016-0043.

Also, there is no evidence indicating that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, or the name “europ-assistance”. See for a similar finding ALDI GmbH & Co. KG v. zhou xiaolei, WIPO Case No. D2014-0957.

By not replying to the Complainant’s contentions, the Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel gives prevalence to the Complainant’s affirmation that no license or authorization was ever given for the use of the trademark EUROP-ASSISTANCE in the disputed domain name.

With the evidence on file, the Panel finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

According to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Policy indicates that certain circumstances specified in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy may, “in particular but without limitation”, be evidence of the disputed domain name’s registration and use in bad faith.

The disputed domain name was being used by the Respondent to redirect Internet users on malicious websites informing them that they had won a mobile phone. This is evidence of bad faith registration and use.

Furthermore, the website associated the disputed domain name contains at the date of this decision links related to the good offered by the Complainant. Under these circumstances, the Panel considers that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark EUROP-ASSISTANCE. See MasterCard International Incorporated v. Capital Conservator Group LLC, WIPO Case No. D2009-1051.

The disputed domain name redirects at the date of the decision Internet traffic to a website displaying PPC advertisements for the Complainant’s related services. Given the confusing similarity between the EUROP‑ASSISTANCE trademark and the disputed domain name, Internet users would likely be confused into believing that the Complainant is affiliated with the website to which the disputed domain name resolves. Presumably the Respondent intends to benefit from the confusion created: it is likely that the Respondent earns income when Internet users click on the links in search of EUROP-ASSISTANCE services. See Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. PrivacyProtect.org and Kim Bum LLC, WIPO Case No. D2013-0181.

Another indication of bad faith is in this Panel view the apparent change of the content of the website after the receipt of the Complaint. The change to the Respondent’s website further supports a finding of bad faith. See Maplin Electronics Limited v. Lee Jeongsoon, WIPO Case No. D2006-0011 (change in website after receiving complaint was evidence of bad faith) or V&V Supremo Foods, Inc. v. [email protected], WIPO Case No. D2006-1373.

In addition to the evidence in the case file, the Panel further notes that the website to which the disputed domain name redirects contains a hyperlinked offer to “buy this domain” through <sedo.com> for USD 688. This is an additional element that sustains in the Panel’s view the conclusion of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name, primarily for the purpose of selling it to Complainant under paragraph 4(i)(b) of the Policy. For a similar finding, ICC Business Corporation FZ LLC v. Shashank Sharma, WIPO Case No. D2018-1919.

In the Panel’s view, these circumstances represent evidence of registration and use in bad faith of the disputed domain name. The Respondent failed to bring evidence as to the contrary. Consequently, the Panel concludes that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is fulfilled.

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, <europassistance.info> be transferred to the Complainant.

Mihaela Maravela
Sole Panelist
Date: November 7, 2019