Alpol Cosmetique v Moshood shehu

WIPO Case No. D2023-3133

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Alpol Cosmetique v. Moshood shehu

Case No. D2023-3133

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Alpol Cosmetique, France, represented by Cabinet Germain & Maureau, France.

The Respondent is Moshood shehu, Nigeria.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <alpolcosmetique.com> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 20, 2023.

On July 21, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On July 21, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the
Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name
which differed from the named Respondent (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY, PrivacyGuardian.org llc) and
contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on
July 26, 2023 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the
Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on

July 27, 2023.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal

requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the the due date for Response was August 21, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response.

Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 28, 2023.

page 2

The Center appointed George R. F. Souter as the sole panelist in this matter on September 4, 2023.
The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and
Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the

Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is an international manufacturer of cosmetic products. It has sold its products under its
ALPOL trademark since 1947, and provided the Panel with details of extensive use of its ALPOL trademark
internationally. The Complainant is the proprietor of French trademark registration number 1363802, dated
July 17, 1986, of its ALPOL trademark.

The disputed domain name was registered on February 11, 2023, and resolves to a website offering cosmetic products for sale.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ALPOL trademark, containing the ALPOL trademark in its entirety, together with a merely descriptive additional element.

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, in particular that the Respondent is not generally known by the disputed domain name, and the

Respondent has never been granted permission to use the Complainant’s ALPOL trademark in connection

with the registration of a domain name or otherwise

The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, and is being used in bad faith in connection with the website referred to above.

The Complainant has provided the Panel with evidence of the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain

name in connection with phishing activity, impersonation of the Complainant, and to attempts to divert

payments to the Complainant to fraudulently obtain bank details.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights to the trademark ALPOL for the purposes of these proceedings.

It is well established in prior decisions under the Policy that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”

may generally be disregarded when comparing a trademark with a disputed domain name. The Panel finds

that the gTLD “.com” may be disregarded in the circumstances of the present case.

The Complainant’s ALPOL trademark is instantly recognizable in the disputed domain name, rendering the

disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The mere addition of the word

“cosmetique”, clearly does not detract from this finding.

page 3

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the

Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel considers that the Complainant’s allegations under section 5 above are sufficient to provide a

prima facie case under this heading, and the burden of production of evidence shifts to the Respondent.

It is the consensus view of UDRP panels, with which the Panel agrees, that a prima facie case advanced by the complainant will generally be sufficient for the complainant to be deemed to have satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, provided the respondent does not come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Respondent did not advance any claim of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name to rebut this prima facie case.

The composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. never confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the

Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

In the circumstances of the present case, in which the Panel regards it as self-evident that the Complainant’s

trademark was deliberately targeted in the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the disputed domain

name was registered in bad faith.

It is well-established in prior decisions under the Policy that the use of a disputed domain name in the Complainant, a finding of use in bad faith is clearly appropriate, and the Panel so finds.

connection with phishing constitutes use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. It is also well-established
in prior decisions under the Policy that the use of a disputed domain name in connection with the sale of
products competing with those of the Complainant constitutes use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the

Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <alpolcosmetique.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/George R. F. Souter/

George R. F. Souter

Sole Panelist
Date: September 18, 2023