I. Confusing Similarity
The Panel agrees that the disputed domain name <colascanada-ca.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's earlier trademarks COLAS. The addition of the geographical terms “CANADA” and “CA” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark COLAS.
In fact, the likelihood of confusion is underlined by the addition of these geographical terms as it might induce the idea that this domain name is related to the Complainant’s official domain name <colascanada.ca>.
Moreover, the extension “.com” is not to be taken into consideration when examining the similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name (WIPO Case No. D2005-0016, Accor v. Noldc Inc.). The mere adjunction of a gTLD such as “.com” is irrelevant as it is well established that the generic Top Level Domain is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity (WIPO Case No. 2013-0820, L’Oréal v Tina Smith, WIPO Case No. D2008-0820 Titoni AG v Runxin Wang and WIPO Case No. D2009-0877, Alstom v. Itete Peru S.A.).
Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that the first condition under the Policy is met.
II. Lack of Respondent's rights or legitimate interests
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, the burden of proof shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such appropriate allegations or evidence, a complainant is generally deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP.
Based on the available evidence, the Respondent does not appear to be known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not a licensee of, nor has any kind of relationship with, the Complainant. The Complainant has never authorised the Respondent to make use of its trademark, nor of a confusingly similar trademark in the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page. Also, the Respondent appears from what the Complainant has filed in the file to use the disputed domain name to pass itself off as one of the Complainant’s employees, in order to receive payment in place of the Complainant. Such use does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services, or to a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, as other UDRP panels have found.
The Panel notes that the Respondent had an opportunity to comment on the Complaint’s allegations by filing a Response, which the Respondent failed to do.
Thus, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has at least established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel takes the view that also the second requirement under the Policy is met.
III. Bad Faith
The Complainant has been the owner of the international trademark COLAS since 2001 and of the French trademark since 2000. The registration of the trademark COLAS predates the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark and has intentionally registered the domain name in order to create confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.
In the present case, the following factors should be also considered:
(i) the Respondent failed to submit any reponse and has not provided any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use of the disputed domain name;
(ii) the Respondent registered the disputed domain name containing the Complainant's earlier trademarks COLAS to which it added the geographical terms “CANADA” and “CA”, in the context where the Complainant has also a domain name <colascanada.ca>;
(iii) the Respondent has no business relationship with the Complainant, nor was ever authorised to use a domain name similar to the Complainant's trademark;
(iv) the disputed domain name redirects to an inactive page and moreover has been used in a phishing scheme as the Respondent attempted to pass of as one of the Complainant’s employees by reflecting the domain name in email addresses, which is an evidence of bad faith.
In light of the foregoing, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and has been using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Thus, also the third and last condition under the Policy is satisfied.
|