WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Greenyard NV v. al shimaa algohary, Alexhightech

Case No. D2020-1936

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Greenyard NV, Belgium, represented by Gevers Legal NV, Belgium.

The Respondent is al shimaa algohary, Alexhightech, Egypt.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name, <greenyardplus.com> (the “Domain Name”), is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 24, 2020. On July 24, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On July 27, 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.

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”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 29, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 18, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 19, 2020.

The Center appointed Tony Willoughby as the sole panelist in this matter on August 25, 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

The Complainant is a Belgian company founded in 1987. It is a supplier of fruit, vegetables, flowers and plants. It trades internationally. It is the registered proprietor of various trade mark registrations covering the name “Greenyard”, the name under which it carries on business. The earliest of those registrations is International trade mark registration No. 1172478 dated July 10, 2013 GREENYARD (word) for various foods flowers and plants in classes 29, 30 and 31.

The Domain Name was registered on March 27, 2019 and is connected to a webpage of Plesk, a hosting control panel. The page features a message stating “If you are seeing this message, the website for <greenyardplus.com> is not available at this time” and goes on to explain that this may be because the owner has not put any content on the website or because the provider has suspended the page.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s GREENYARD registered trade mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. General

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:

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

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

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

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name comprises the word “greenyard”, the word “plus” and the generic “.com” Top-Level Domain identifier.

Section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition explains the test for identity or confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy and includes the following passage:

“While each case is judged on its own merits, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing.”

The Complainant’s GREENYARD trade mark is readily recognizable in its entirety in the Domain Name. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. In support of that contention the Complainant asserts that it has no connection with the Respondent and has granted the Respondent no permission to use its GREENYARD trade mark. In addition, the Complainant has produced the following evidence:

1. evidence purporting to show that global trade mark searches have been undertaken demonstrating that the Respondent has no trade mark registrations of GREENYARD.

2. an email from the Respondent, using the Domain Name for an email address, to a customer of the Complainant in which the Respondent claims to be “GREENYARD LLC, a broker and trading company based in Egypt” and specializing in “fruits and vegtables business”.

3. correspondence with an intellectual property law firm in Egypt stating that there is no such company as “Greenyard LLC”, the company name used by the Respondent.

4. evidence showing that the Respondent is the registrant of the domain name, <dreamland-toys.com>, and that DREAMLAND is a European Union registered trade mark of a Belgian toy company.

The Complainant contends that this evidence demonstrates that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant’s area of business under the GREENYARD trade mark, is targeting Belgian companies and registered the Domain Name for the purpose for which the Domain Name is being used, namely to impersonate the Complainant for commercial gain.

The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case, in other words a case calling for an answer from the Respondent. The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complainant’s allegations.

The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The contentions of the Complainant supported by evidence and uncontested by the Respondent demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Panel that the Respondent registered the Domain Name for the purpose of impersonating the Complainant for commercial gain.

The Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraphs 4(a)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) 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 Domain Name, <greenyardplus.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Tony Willoughby
Sole Panelist
Date: August 27, 2020