The European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO” and “the Complainant”) is a recognised agency of the European Union and its sole official agency responsible for the registration and administration of various kinds of intellectual property rights, including trademarks. It is the registered owner of the aforesaid EUIPO trademarks. The Complainant has continuously used the EUIPO trademarks since their registration to designate the services it provides under the trademarks. On September 10, 2022, the Respondent registered the domain name <epta-agencies.com> (“the disputed domain name”) and caused it to resolve to a website. That website promotes itself as being the European Patent and Trademark Agency (“the EPTA”) and in what is tendered as a screenshot states: “We provide a client access to our Patents and Trademarks data base for comfortable searching and gaining information” and that it provides “patent watch services”, “trademark watch services”, “database administration” and “examination activity”. The Respondent has, according to the Complainant, also been using the disputed domain name and its website to send out purported invoices from “EPTA European Patent and Trademark Agency” for the “Registration of Your Community Trade Mark”, but which also include the expression “Data publication from EUIPO-European Union Intellectual Property Office”, ”Registration and Reproduction of Your Community Trademark” (twice) and the expression “Registration Community Trademark Application Offer”. The purported invoices require payment of a specified fee and give details of a bank account into which payment is to be made to the benefit of “EPTA-Agency.” The Complainant is concerned that the registration of the disputed domain name, its use in the resolving website and in the purported invoices, are calculated to give the false impression that the EPTA is an official agency for the processing of EU trademarks, to pass itself off as the Complainant and to obtain payment for the illegitimate services allegedly offered by the Respondent.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the Complainant has instituted this proceeding and requests “Revocation” (sic<\/em>) of the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>",
"other_legal_proceedings": " The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>",
"no_response_filed": " A. COMPLAINANT<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The Complainant is the sole official European Union agency with responsibility for intellectual property rights and it has been performing that function for some 30 years.<\/p>\n 2. The Complainant provides its services in that respect pursuant to well-known unregistered trademarks incorporating the letters EU indicating the European Union and the letters IPO indicating Intellectual Property Office.<\/span><\/p>\n 3. The EUIPO trademarks are also trade names of the Complainant as they are signs used in the course of trade according to Article 8 (4) (a) and (b) and Article 5(4)(a) and (b) of the Directive (EU) 2015\/2436 and they are protected similarly to the EUIPO trademarks.<\/span><\/p>\n 4. On September 10, 2022, the Respondent registered the domain name <epta-agencies.com> <\/strong>(“the disputed domain name”).<\/span><\/p>\n 5. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the EUIPO trademarks because it contains without the permission of the Complainant the word “epta” and the word “agencies” the latter of which is descriptive and generic, which does not render a unique impression and increases the misleading nature of the disputed domain name, as it gives the false impression that the Respondent is an official European institution and is repeated in the aforesaid trade name of the Respondent.<\/span><\/p>\n 6. The Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as:<\/span><\/p>\n (a) the only body under EU law to be active in the field of intellectual property rights in the European Union is the Complainant;<\/span><\/p>\n (b) the use by the Respondent of the disputed domain name including on its website is calculated to confuse owners of intellectual property into mistaking the Respondent for the Complainant or another official EU agency for the purpose of obtaining money illegally;<\/span><\/p>\n (c) the Respondent uses the term EPTA on its resolving website which wrongly purports to impersonate a European\/ EU Agency;<\/span><\/p>\n (d) the Respondent uses the disputed domain name solely for a fraudulent business model aimed at obtaining unlawful profit by unfair competition constituted by passing itself off as the Complainant or a similar institution.<\/span><\/p>\n 7. The Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. That is so because:<\/span><\/p>\n (a) the Respondent’s business model is built on creating the aforesaid confusing impression which is increased by sending misleading letters to the owners of intellectual property registered with the Complainant;<\/span><\/p>\n (b) the aforesaid letters both in their printed or electronic form appear like invoices issued by the Complainant for its services as the authority responsible for maintaining the official trademark register and data base;<\/span><\/p>\n (c) the purported invoices are drafted in a manner to hide the fact that they are a proposal to enter into a contract for registration in a certain ”private database” of trademarks;<\/span><\/p>\n (d) the purported invoices do not contain a transparent and clearly visible disclosure that the sender is not an official body and that the registration is not linked to registration in the official trademark database of the Complainant;<\/span><\/p>\n (e) in so far as that information is disclosed, it is only vaguely disclosed in very small and visually unremarkable print at the bottom of the letter and is highly likely to go unnoticed by most customers;<\/span><\/p>\n (f) the Respondent is on the list of senders of misleading letters published by the Complainant and on similar lists published by the World Intellectual Property Organization and other public institutions;<\/span><\/p>\n (g) the Respondent has used the reputation of the Complainant for its own benefit and creates a significant risk of confusion in the eyes of its customers by offering them useless and overpriced services;<\/span><\/p>\n (h) the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to engage in fraudulent conduct for profit and in bad faith by attracting the owners of registered intellectual property to its website;<\/span><\/p>\n (i) the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to generate confusion with the Complainant and EUIPO trademarks; and<\/span><\/p>\n (J) the Respondent has detracted from the reputation of the Complainant.<\/span><\/p>\n 8. The Complainant therefore seeks the following remedy: “The Complainant requests <\/strong>the REVOCATION <\/strong>of the disputed domain name”. B . RESPONDENT<\/span><\/strong> The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"bad_faith": " 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).<\/p>",
"procedural_factors": " The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>",
"decision": "Rejected",
"panelists": [
"Neil Brown"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2024-12-10 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant has established by evidence that it owns the following trademarks:<\/span><\/p>\n (collectively “the EUIPO trademarks”).<\/span><\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"epta-agencies.com": "REJECTED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}
<\/span><\/p>\n
The Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.<\/span><\/p>",
"rights": "\n