WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Natixis v. Foreign Debts Reconciliation Committee

Case No. D2020-1743

1. The Parties

1.1 The Complainant is Natixis, France, represented by Inlex IP Expertise, France.

1.2 The Respondent is Foreign Debts Reconciliation Committee, United States of America (“United States”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

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

3. Procedural History

3.1 The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 3, 2020. On July 3, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On July 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.

3.2 The Center verified that 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”).

3.3 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 10, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 30, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 31, 2020.

3.4 The Center appointed Matthew S. Harris as the sole panelist in this matter on August 10, 2020. 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

4.1 The Complainant is a French company and is the corporate, investment, and financial services arm of BPCE Group. It has more than 17,000 employees in 38 countries.

4.2 The Complainant owns various registered trade marks that comprise or incorporate the term “Natixis”. They include:

(i) French trade mark registration no. 3416315, for NATIXIS as a word mark in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, and 38 filed on March 14, 2006;

(ii) European Union trade mark registration no. 5129176, for NATIXIS as a word mark filed in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, and 38 on June 12, 2006;

(iii) International trade mark registration no. 1071008, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, and 38 filed on April 21, 2010. The mark designated, and proceeded to grant, in 19 territories. It takes the following form:

4.3 The Complainant is the owner of the domain name <natixis.com>, which is uses for a website in respect of its activities. It has been a successful complainant in numerous cases under the Policy.

4.4 The Domain Name was registered on April 22, 2020. It has not been used for any active website since registration, but does have active email servers.

4.5 The registration details for the Domain Name identify the registrant as some form of entity based in the United States. However, those registration details are false and provide an address that does not exist.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

5.1 The Complainant identifies its trade mark rights and business. It claims that the Domain Name comprises its trade mark combined with the words “investment and bank” and that as a consequence the Domain Name “is identical and highly similar” to its rights. It claims that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name. It also contends that the Respondent must have known of the Complainant at the time the Domain Name was registered and expresses concern that since false contact details have been provided and that email servers are active, there “is a high risk that the [Domain Name] is being used for phishing or scams”. It is said to follow that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1 There are no exceptional circumstances within paragraph 5(f) of the Rules so as to prevent this Panel from determining the dispute based upon the Complaint, notwithstanding the failure of the Respondent to lodge a Response.

6.2 Notwithstanding the default of the Respondent, it remains incumbent on the Complainant to make out its case in all respects set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. Namely, the Complainant must prove that:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i)); and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name (paragraph 4(a)(ii)); and

(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii)).

6.3 However, under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, where a party does not comply with any provision of the Rules, the Panel shall “draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate”.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

6.4 The Complainant has satisfied the Panel that it has registered trade rights for NATIXIS the form, inter alia, of a word mark. In order to satisfy the first element of the Policy it is usually sufficient for a complainant to show that the relevant mark is “recognizable within the disputed domain name”; as to which see section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). The Domain Name can most sensibly be read as the words “natixis investment bank” in combination with the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain. The Complainant’s mark is therefore clearly recognizable in the Domain Name.

6.5 The Complainant has, therefore, satisfied the Panel that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trade mark and has thereby made out the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests and Registered and Used in Bad Faith

6.6 It is usual for panels under the Policy to consider the issues of rights or legitimate interests, and registration and use in bad faith in turn. However, in a case such as this it is more convenient to consider those issues together.

6.7 The Complainant essentially contends that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used to falsely impersonate the Complainant, and most likely with a view to sending emails purporting to come from the Complainant when they do not, as part of some phishing scheme or other scam. If that is so, the Complainant’s case succeeds. There are no rights or legitimate interests in holding a domain name for the purpose of engaging in such fraudulent impersonation. Further, the registration and use of a domain name for such a purpose involves registration and use in bad faith (see, for example, Vestey Group Limited v. George Collins, WIPO Case No. D2008-1308). Such activity is a clear-cut example of bad faith registration and use of a domain name, regardless of whether it obviously falls within the examples of circumstances indicating bad faith set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy.

6.8 The Panel accepts that the Domain Name was indeed registered and is being held for the purpose of fraudulently impersonating the Complainant. That is clear from the Domain Name itself, which is clearly intended to refer to the Complainant and its business activities and the fact that false contact details have been provided in the WhoIs details for the Domain Name. There is also the Respondent’s non-participation in these proceedings despite the serious allegation that is being advanced in relation to the Respondent’s conduct.

6.9 The exact form that the Respondent’s fraudulent scheme has or will take is not entirely clear. But the Complainant’s assertion that this involves, or will involve, the Domain Name being used for emails that falsely claim to come from the Complainant’s employees, seems plausible and is supported by evidence that the Domain Name is linked to active email servers. It is also consistent with “Foreign debts reconciliation committee” being used as the name for the registrant of the Domain Name.

6.10 In the circumstances, the Complainant has made out the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) and 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

7. Decision

7.1 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 <natixisinvestmentbank.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Matthew S. Harris
Sole Panelist
Date: August 11, 2020