Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-105808

It is necessary for the complainant, if it is to succeed in this administrative proceeding, to prove each of the three elements referred to in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, namely that:

(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name; and

(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Panel finds that the first disputed domain name <EuroBorseGroup.com> is confusingly similar to the trademarks of the Complainant. The disputed domain name <EuroBorseGroup.com>, incorporates the Complainant’s well-known, registered trademark with a generic indication “euro”. The addition of the gTLD “.com” does not add any distinctiveness to the disputed domain name. The loss of the letter "e" in Boerse, what stock exchange in English means, does not add any distinctiveness in the allover view. Further is the first wordpart in this disputed domain name "euro" similar to "eurex", the other trademark of the Complainant. The first three letters are identical. In the context of the relevant branch, it is confusing similar. Previous panels have accepted in several cases that EUREX is well known, e.g. CAC Case No. 104536 - <EUREXKR.com>, CAC-UDRP-105809 -<EureXs.com>, <Tw-EureX.com>, <EureXSystem.com>.

The Panel finds that the second disputed domain name <BoerseGroup.com> is confusingly similar to the trademarks of the Complainant. The disputed domain name <BoerseGroup.com>, incorporates entirely the Complainant’s well-known, registered trademark disregarding the geographic indication “Deutsche”. The addition of the gTLD “.com” does not add any distinctiveness to the Disputed Domain Name. The distinctive wordpart beyond "Deutsche" is "Boerse", what stock exchange in English means. It is distinctive because the German Word is recognizable in the world wide English spoken financial business. Given that Complainant’s Marks are recognizable in the disputed domain name EuroBorseGroup.com, and the use of the disputed domain name, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks (WIPO Case No. D2023-2183 - <uk-lw.com>).

The Complainant asserts that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Complainant has not granted the Respondents any rights to use Complaints trademarks within the disputed domain names, nor are the Respondents affiliated to the Complainant. Moreover, the Complainant contends and provides evidence that both Respondents have not developed a legitimate use in respect of the disputed domain names. The Complainant contends that the Respondents were seeking to use the disputed domains name only to divert consumers to its own business or to fraud. In case of the first disputed domain name the Respondent already had acted criminal, see the provided evidence Criminal Complaint by a defrauded user against the Complainant.

In lack of any Response from the Respondents or any other information indicating the contrary, the Panel concludes that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.

The Complainant also asserted and proved that the Respondents tried to attract internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks. The Complainant rightfully contended that the disputed domain names are confusing similar to the prior trademarks of the Complainant. The Complainant also referred to the distinctiveness and reputation of its trademarks.

This makes it highly unlikely that the Respondents had no knowledge of the Complainant's prior trademark rights at the time of registration of the disputed domain names. The Complainant rightfully contended that the Respondents have used the disputed domain names intentionally to attract visitors for unfair commercial gain by creating confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks, and that the Respondents have used the disputed domain names with that intention, namely in bad faith. See e.g., Accor v. Shangheo Heo / Contact Privacy Inc., WIPO Case No. D2014-1471 where the Panel stated that: “The unopposed allegation of phishing, and the evidence submitted in support of phishing, combined with the likelihood of confusion, is sufficient evidence of bad faith. …It seems likely, as Complainant alleges, that Respondent intentionally attempted to deceive consumers into providing personal and financial information, believing that Respondent was associated with the bona fide services offered by Complainant.”. Reference is made also to: CAC case N° 101036, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG vs. SKYRXSHOP - <dulcolax.xyz> and WIPO Case no. D2014-0306 Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Klinik Sari Padma, BAKTI HUSADA.

Furthermore, the Respondents were using a hidden identity and used both the same very extraordinary provider titan. But this argument is not to be discussed further because bad faith is evident, whatsoever.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were both registered and used in bad faith and that the Complaint succeeds under the third element of the Policy.