I.
As the Respondent did not file an administratively compliant Response, pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate. The Panel may accept the contentions of the Complainant as admitted by the Respondent.
II.
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant`s trademarks (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i)of the Policy).
The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant`s trademark "Ascoma". The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the trademark “Ascoma”. The top level domain “.xyz” is to be neglected in this assessment.
III.
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy).
No arguments, why the Respondent could have own rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name are at hand, particularly because the Complainant stated that the term “Ascoma” is a generated word with no dictionary meaning on its own other than being linked to the Complainant`s trademark. The Panel accepts the contentions of the Complainant that the Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
IV.
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Domain Name to have been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii)of the Policy).
The timing of the registration of the disputed domain name indicates the Respondent`s bad faith in registering such domain name, as, at that time, the Complainant was already known under the name “Ascoma Assureurs Conseils” and was owner of the trademarks “Ascoma” and "Ascoma Sante" in several countries. The Panel has no reason to disbelieve the Complainant when it argues that this coincidence has its roots in the fact that the Respondent knew the Complainant and its activities at the time of registration and sought to hinder the Complainant from registering the domain name itself.
As the term "ascoma" does not have a generic meaning, the Respondent may have wished to use for other reasons, it is evident that the Respondent must have known the Complainant and/or its trademarks. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the domain without reference to Complainant`s trademarks.
The Complainant further states, the concept of the domain names “being used in bad faith” is not limited to positive action, but rather incorporates inaction. At least in this case, where, according to the Complainant's undisputed contentions, "Ascoma" is a famous trademark, the Panel agrees. According to paragraph 4(b)(i) it shall be seen as evidence for bad faith use, if the Respondent registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark from reflecting such mark in a corresponding domain name (see also case CAC 101251 SURCREDIT-AGRICOLE.COM, CAC 101250 PRADAXA.XYZ: "The adoption of a well-known trademark into a domain name by someone with no apparent connection with the name suggests opportunistic bad faith (see The Gap, Inc. v. Deng Youqian, WIPO Case No. D2009-0113; SembCorp Industries Limited v. Hu Huan Xin, WIPO Case No. D2001-1092; Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co., WIPO Case No. D2000-0163).
According to the Complainant`s contention and in the absence of any contrary contention of the Respondent, the Panel holds the Respondent`s conduct to be the manifestation of use in bad faith.
|