The Panel, first of all, takes note from the Case File that the registrant contact details provided by the registrar of the disputed domain name indicate a false address. The Danish city of Aarhus is notably located in the province of East Jutland, not "Paris". Other elements of the details reinforce suspicion as to their veracity.
As to the contentions put forward by the Complainant for the purposes of the three cumulative UDRP criteria, the Panel:
- accepts that the stem of the disputed domain name is identical to that of the Complainant's trademark and that this identicality is unaffected by the suffix representing the Flanders Top Level Domain designator “.frl”, thereby establishing the Complainant's rights beyond doubt;
- accepts that there is no indication that the Respondent has either rights or a legitimate interest in the character string contained in the disputed domain name that corresponds to the Complainant's trademark;
- does not accept that the Respondent has made no preparations or efforts to use the disputed domain name. Rather, the screenshot evidence adduced by the Complainant shows that the Respondent has illegitimately sought to mimic, to the extent of colour card elements, the look and feel of the Complainant's branding;
- accepts that the purpose pursued by the Respondent at registration and during use of the disputed domain name was to impersonate the Complainant, which is a banking group, and that this misuse of a domain name must have been deliberate and thus in bad faith.
For these reasons, the Complaint is accepted and the Panel orders the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant.
Finally, the Panel remarks that it was unnecessary to consider the legal contention raised by the Complainant concerning the standard and burden of proof. The Complainant adduced evidence and grounds going beyond a mere prima facie case.
|