Axa SA v connexion block

WIPO Case No. D2024-4957

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Axa SA v. connexion block

Case No. D2024-4957

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Axa SA, France, represented by Selarl Candé - Blanchard - Ducamp, France.

The Respondent is connexion block, France.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <axa-europe-patrimoine.com> is registered with Gransy, s.r.o. d/b/a subreg.cz

(the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 2, amendment to the Complaint on December 6, 2024.

2024. On December 2, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar
verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 3, 2024, 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 (Not Disclosed Not Disclosed, My Domain
Provider) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the
Complainant on December 6, 2024, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 11, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 31, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any

response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 5, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed William Lobelson as the sole panelist in this matter on January 8, 2025. 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 AXA SA, a French group that operates insurance and assets management services on a worldwide basis.

It owns trademark rights in the name AXA, such as:

International Trademark Registration AXA No. 490030, registered on December 5, 1984;
European Union Trade Mark AXA No. 008772766, registered on September 7, 2012; and
French Trademark AXA No. 1270658, registered on January 10, 1984.

The disputed domain name <axa-europe-patrimoine.com> was registered on December 1, 2023. At the time of filing the Complaint, it resolved to a Registrar parking web page.

The Complainant served cease and desist letters to the Respondent on October 6, 2023 and January 22,

2024, that all remained unanswered.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its earlier trademarks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Notwithstanding the default of the Respondent, it remains incumbent on the Complainant to make out its case in all respects under the Rules set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. Namely, the Complainant must prove that:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the

Complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i));

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name

(paragraph 4(a)(ii)); and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii)).

page 3

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing
(or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison
between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel

Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the mark is reproduced and is recognizable within the disputed domain name, despite the addition of the terms “europe” and “patrimoine”. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.7 and 1.8.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

(i) before any notice of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the
disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide

offering of goods and services;

(ii) the Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the

disputed domain name, even if the Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without
intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at

issue.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized
that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task
of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the
respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or
legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with
relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of
proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant
evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 2.1.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, particularly by asserting that the Respondent is not affiliated with it in any way and that it never authorized the Respondent to use its trademark as part of the disputed domain name.

The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

The Complainant further contends that the Respondent does not make any bona fide use – neither commercial nor noncommercial – of the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

page 4

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Complainant claims that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name and uses the same in bad faith, even though the disputed domain name has been passively held by the Complainant.

It is a consensus view among UDRP panels that, with comparative reference to the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy deemed to establish bad faith registration and use, such as the apparent lack of so-called active use (e.g., to resolve to a website) of the domain name without any active attempt to sell or to contact the trademark holder (which constitutes passive holding), does not as such prevent a finding of bad

faith.

The Panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the Respondent is acting in bad faith.

Examples of what may be cumulative circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith include the was used in bad faith given the circumstances surrounding registration.

Complainant having a well-known trademark, no response to the Complaint having been filed, and the

D2014-0863, AXA SA v. Frank Van, <axacorporatetrust.com>), and the brand AXA ranked 43rd out of the 100 best global brands (Interbrand Ranking 2023).

The Complainant has substantiated the fact that its trademark AXA, which has been registered and used in decisions have acknowledged the Complainant’s trademarks reputation (WIPO Case No.

Further the Respondent appears to have provided false or incomplete registration details when registering the disputed domain name. Moreover, the fact that the Respondent used a French address implies that he/she is a French resident or at least has connections with France, where the Complainant’s mark is very well-known.

In light of the above, this Panel finds hard to believe that the Respondent did not have the Complainant’s trademark in mind when he registered the disputed domain name.

Regarding the high similarity of the disputed domain name with the trademark AXA, it seems unlikely that the disputed domain name could have been registered and then used in good faith.

The Panel also notes that the Respondent did reply neither to Complainant’s cease and desist letters nor the present Complaint.

The Panel infers from the above that the Respondent acted in bad faith when he/she registered the disputed domain name, and still acts in bad faith.

The disputed domain name is currently directed to a Registrar parking web page.

As stated in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3, there is a consensus view about “passive holding”:

“From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank
or ‘coming soon’ page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While
panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered
relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the

page 5

complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to

which the domain name may be put.”

Such passive holding is to be regarded as use in bad faith (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear
Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Jupiters Limited v. Aaron Hall, WIPO Case No. D2000-0574;
Ladbroke Group Plc v. Sonoma International LDC, WIPO Case No. D2002-0131; Westdev Limited v. Private
Data, WIPO Case No. D2007-1903; Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1393; Intel Corporation v. The Pentium Group, WIPO Case No. D2009-0273).

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy.

Besides, given that the Complainant operates in financial and insurance services, the Panel suspects that the registration of the disputed domain name, which has been found confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, is very likely intended for phishing purposes or similar fraudulent activities (Boursorama S.A. v. FG GFGS, WIPO Case No. D2023-2729).

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 <axa-europe-patrimoine.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/William Lobelson/
William Lobelson
Sole Panelist
Date: January 10, 2025