AXA SA v hamza rquiq

WIPO Case No. D2024-0938

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

AXA SA v. hamza rquiq

Case No. D2024-0938

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is hamza rquiq, Morocco.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <axacoding.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 4, 2024.

On March 4, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in

connection with the disputed domain name. On March 4, 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 (Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the

Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 6, 2024, 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 amendment to the Complaint on March 6, 2024.

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 March 12, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph

5, the due date for Response was April 1, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly,

the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 5, 2024.

The Center appointed Karen Fong as the sole panelist in this matter on April 12, 2024. 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.

page 2

4. Factual Background

The AXA Group has roots going back to the 18th century. After a series of mergers, acquisitions and name

changes among the leading insurance companies around the world, the trade name AXA was introduced in

1985. The Complainant is the holding company of the AXA Group. AXA is considered one of the leading

global insurance brands. In 2023, AXA was ranked 43rd among the 100 best global brands according to the

Interbrand ranking.

The Complainant owns trade mark registrations for AXA in numerous countries worldwide including the

following:

- European Union Trade Mark No. 008772766 for AXA, registered on September 7, 2012,

- International Trade Mark No. 490030 for AXA, designating inter alia, Morocco registered on December 5,

1984;

- French Trade Mark No. 1270658 for AXA, registered on January 10, 1984

(individually and collectively the “Trade Mark”).

The Complainant owns a number of domain names comprising the Trade Mark including <axa.com> and

<axa.fr>.

The Respondent appears to be based in Morocco. The disputed domain name was registered on April 23,

2023. It resolves to a pay-per-click (“PPC”) webpage with commercial links to third party competitor websites

with the link headings “Business Limited Liability Insurance”, “Apply for Ambetter Insurance” and “Small

Business Workers Comp Insurance” (the “Website”).

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 the Trade Mark,

that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name, and that

the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant requests transfer

of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

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 trade mark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trade mark

or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

page 3

The Panel finds the entirety of the trade mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly,

the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trade mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO

Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

While the addition of the other term here “coding” after the trade mark in the disputed domain name may

bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not

prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Trade Mark for the

purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

Based on the available record, 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.

While 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 often impossible

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. 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 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. 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.

Moreover, the nature of the disputed domain name is inherently misleading as it effectively impersonates or

suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

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 Respondent must have been aware of the Trade Mark when he

registered the disputed domain name given the Trade Mark was registered prior to registration of the

disputed domain name and the global reputation of the Trade Mark. It is therefore implausible that the

Respondent was unaware of the Complainant when he registered the disputed domain name.

In the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2 states as follows:

“Noting the near instantaneous and global reach of the Internet and search engines, and particularly in

circumstances where the complainant’s mark is widely known (including in its sector) or highly specific and a

respondent cannot credibly claim to have been unaware of the mark (particularly in the case of domainers),

panels have been prepared to infer that the respondent knew, or have found that the respondent should

have known, that its registration would be identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark. Further

factors including the nature of the domain name, the chosen top-level domain, any use of the domain name,

page 4

or any respondent pattern, may obviate a respondent’s claim not to have been aware of the complainant’s

mark.”

The fact that there is a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with the Respondent’s choice

of the disputed domain name without any explanation is also a significant factor to consider (as stated in

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1). The disputed domain name falls into the category stated above and the

Panel finds that registration is in bad faith.

The disputed domain name is also being used in bad faith.

The Website is a PPC site which has been set up for the commercial benefit of the Respondent. It is highly

likely that Internet users when typing the disputed domain name into their browser or finding it through a

search engine would have been looking for a site operated by the Complainant rather than the Respondent.

The disputed domain name is likely to confuse Internet users trying to find the Complainant’s website. Such

confusion will inevitably result due to the fact that the disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s

distinctive Trade Mark.

The Respondent employs the reputation of the Trade Mark to mislead users into visiting the disputed domain

name instead of the Complainant’s. From the above, the Panel concludes that the Respondent intentionally

attempted to attract for commercial gain, by misleading Internet users into believing that the Respondent’s

Websites are those of or authorised or endorsed by the Complainant.

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith

under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established.

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 <axacoding.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Karen Fong/

Karen Fong

Sole Panelist

Date: April 24, 2024