Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant proves each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the disputed domain name should be transferred or revoked:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel will proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in these proceedings.
RIGHTS
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademarks. It contains the Complainant's Trademarks "BIODERMA" and then a non-distinctive term "event" is added which is not sufficient to distinguish disputed domain name from Complainant's Trademark.
For sake of completeness, the Panel asserts that the top-level suffix in the domain name (i.e. the ".com") must be disregarded under the identity / confusing similarity test as it is a necessary technical requirement of registration.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Complainant satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTEREST
The Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, a respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy (please see, for example, WIPO case no. D2003-0455, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.).
As asserted by the Complainant (and unchallenged by the Respondent), the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Neither is the Respondent in any way related to the Complainant. The Respondent failed to provide any information and evidence that it has relevant rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy).
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent did not establish any right or legitimate interest to the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).
BAD FAITH
The Panel finds that the Respondent operates a website under the disputed domain name which refers to Complainant's Trademarks and which requests internet users to register for some kind of event allegedly organized by the Complainant. Therefore, the Respondent attempts to pass off as the Complainant or at least create a false notion of association with the Complainant in order to obtain personal data from Internet users, who are misled into believing that the website is supported by or connected to the Complainant, in other words, the Respondent uses the website for phishing activities.
The Panel believes that phishing activities conducted using the disputed domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's Trademarks are clear evidence of bad faith of the Respondent as it has been held by number of previous UDRP decisions, please see for example Morgan Stanley v. Zhang Sheng Xu / Zhang Sheng Xu, FA 1600534 (Nat. Art. Forum Feb. 16, 2015) stating that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(a)(iii)) or Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Iza, FA 245960 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 3, 2004) concluding that using a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, redirects Internet users to a website that imitates the Complainant’s billing website, and is used to fraudulently acquire personal information from the Complainant’s clients is evidence of bad faith registration and use.
As a result, the Panel found that the disputed domain name has been registered and used by the Respondent in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
|