The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
The Panel notes the submissions made by the Complainant regarding phishing. However, it must first be noted that no specific evidence of such has been provided or even argued. This is not therefore a case like CAC Case 101161 Teva Pharmaceutical Industries v Amy Kinjo, CAC Case 100921 Teva Pharmaceutical Industries v Whois Privacy Protection Service, or CAC Case 101390 Bollore v Roy, where the Complaint has included prima facie evidence of such. Here, the Complainant relies upon the identification of the site by Google Safe Browsing. However, this cannot be treated as particularly relevant by a Panel, especially in the absence of any information that would disclose the basis on which Google (or another entity not party to these proceedings) reached this conclusion. For instance, was Google's decision on the basis of specific evidence, or an algorithmic process, or user reports, or some combination of the above? It is well established that a well-argued assertion by a Complainant in an uncontested case should be given due weight, but this is not such a case. Compare it with, for instance, an earlier case concerning the same Complainant, where the Panel was able to take into account a credible allegation that the Respondent was seeking to deceive users into providing personal information: CAC Case 101676 Intesa Sanpaolo v Kara Turner.
The Panel would in any event be able to find that this case is one of 'passive holding', where it is not possible to identify a situation where use would realistically be in good faith (see WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, para 3.2 including its summary of the 'Telstra' line of cases (WIPO AMC Case D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows). The Panel notes that something resembling this point is included in the Complainant's submissions, though the authorities emphasised by the Complainant and supplied as annexes tend to relate to the earlier and much weaker points concerning phishing. One of the factors in the Telstra test is that the Complainant's mark 'has a strong reputation and is widely known'. The Complainant has provided sufficient evidence of such, through its annexes on its activities and records of Google searches. The Panel agrees that the mark is distinctive, and has been in use for many years; the Respondent has provided contact details in Italy, where the Complainant, which has a global reputation, has its longest-established operations. Moreover, the Respondent has, through its failure to participate in these proceedings, 'provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it' of the disputed domain name. The lack of an active website or any other relevant evidence means that the Panel cannot make any further assumptions about actual or contemplated good faith use.
The Panel does not consider the Complainant's further submission regarding paragraph 4(b)(i) (registration primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring) as no evidence has been provided in support of this contention.
|