AXA SA v 洪文朴 (hongwenpu)

WIPO Case No. D2024-0240

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

AXA SA v. 洪文朴 (hongwenpu)

Case No. D2024-0240

1. The Parties

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

Respondent is 洪文朴 (hongwenpu), China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <axainsure.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with DNSPod, Inc. (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 19, 2024. On January 22, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On January 23, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on January 23, 2024, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. On January 23, 2024, the Center informed the Parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the Registration Agreement for the Domain Name is Chinese. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint in English on January 24, 2024, and confirmed its request for English to be the language of the proceeding. Respondent did not submit any comment on Complainant’s submission.

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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 5, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 25, 2024. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the

Center notified Respondent’s default on February 28, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Kimberley Chen Nobles as the sole panelist in this matter on March 11, 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.

4. Factual Background

Complainant is in the insurance business, with numerous activities in three areas, namely, property and casualty insurance, life insurance and savings, and asset management, catering to both individuals and business companies. It currently employes over 110,000 worldwide, serving about 93 million customers over

51 countries, notably, Europe, Africa, North America and the Asia-Pacific region.

Complainant owns numerous registered trademarks for the AXA mark, including:

- European Union registered trademark number 373894 for the AXA word and design mark, registered on
July 29, 1998;

- European Union registered trademark number 008772766 for the AXA word mark, registered on
September 7, 2012;

- French registered trademark number 1270658 for the AXA word mark, registered on January 10, 1984;

- Chinese registered trademark number 1155921 for the AXA word and design mark, registered on
February 28, 1998; and

- International trademark number 1519781 for the AXA word and design mark, registered on May 29,
2019, designating among others China.

Complainant also owns several domain names with the AXA mark, including:

- <axa.com> registered on October 24, 1995;

- <axa.fr> registered on May 19, 1996;

- <axa.net> registered on November 2, 1997; and

- <axa.info> registered on July 30, 2001.

The Domain Name was registered on May 8, 2009 and at the time of the filing of the Complaint, the Domain Name resolved to a website that mirrored or duplicated the contents of one of Complainant’s main official websites at the domain name <axa.com>. Respondent also offered the Domain Name for sale at third party websites. At the time of the Decision, the Domain Name resolves to a third party website offering it for sale.

On December 4, 12, and 20, 2023, Complainant sent cease and desist letters to Respondent via the Registrar’s WhoIs contact form, explaining Complainant’s trademark rights and requesting Respondent to cease using Complainant’s trademark. According to Complainant, no response was received. Complainant then proceeded to file the Complaint.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.

In particular, Complainant contends that it has trademark registrations for AXA, and that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name with the intention to confuse Internet users looking for bona fide and well-known AXA products and services.

page 3

Complainant notes that it has no affiliation with Respondent. Complainant further contends that Respondent is using the Domain Name as a tool to exploit Complainant’s reputation for its own commercial gain, and that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the registration and use of the Domain Name other than

trademark infringement. Further, Complainant contends that Respondent has acted in bad faith in acquiring

and setting up the Domain Name, when Respondent clearly knew of Complainant’s rights.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1. Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding

The Rules, in paragraph 11(a), provide that unless otherwise agreed by the parties or specified otherwise in the registration agreement between the respondent and the registrar in relation to the disputed domain name, the language of the proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.

Complainant submitted its original Complaint in English. In its Complaint, Complainant submitted its request
that the language of the proceeding should be English. According to the information received from the
Registrar, the language of the Registration Agreement for the Domain Name is Chinese.

Complainant submits that the English language should be the language for the current proceeding because the Domain Name is composed of English characters and terms; the content of the website to which the Domain Name reverts was in English; Complainant is based in France and if the proceedings were conducted in Chinese, Complainant would have to incur significant translation expenses, which would add considerable costs to Complainant, cause undue burden on Complainant and result in delay to the proceeding.

In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the Registration Agreement for the Domain Name, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both Parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the Parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time, and costs.

The Panel accepts Complainant’s submissions regarding the language of the proceeding. The Panel also of the proceeding as well as notified Respondent in Chinese and English of the Complaint. Respondent chose not to comment on the language of the proceeding, nor did Respondent choose to file a Response in Chinese or English.

notes that the Domain Name does not have any specific meaning in the Chinese language, and that the
Domain Name contains Complainant’s AXA trademark in its entirety, and the addition of the English term
“insure” to Complainant’s trademark in the Domain Name, the Domain Name redirected to an webpage in
English that duplicated Complainant’s official website; all of which indicate that Respondent understands
The Panel is also mindful of the need to ensure that the proceeding is conducted in a timely and cost-
effective manner. Complainant may be unduly disadvantaged by having to translate the Complaint into
Chinese and to conduct the proceeding in Chinese.

Having considered all the circumstances of this case, the Panel determines that English be the language of the proceeding.

page 4

6.2. Substantive Issues

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:

(i)      the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(ii)     Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

(iii)    the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

Section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition
(“WIPO Overview 3.0”) states that failure to respond to the complainant’s contentions would not by itself
mean that the complainant is deemed to have prevailed; a respondent’s default is not necessarily an

admission that the complainant’s claims are true.

Thus, although in this case, Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint, the burden remains with evidence.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. Complainant has provided evidence of its rights in the AXA trademarks, as noted above under section 4. Complainant has also submitted evidence which supports that the AXA trademarks are widely known and a distinctive identifier of Complainant’s products and services. Complainant has therefore proven that it has the requisite rights in the AXA trademarks.

With Complainant’s rights in the AXA trademarks established, the remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the Domain Name, typically disregarding the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) in which it is registered (in this case, “.com”), is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. See, e.g., B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross, WIPO Case No. D2010-0842.

Here, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AXA trademarks. The incorporation of Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, with the addition of the word “insure”, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the AXA trademark as Complainant’s trademark is recognizable in the Domain Name.

Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant must make a prima facie showing that a respondent possesses no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See, e.g., Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International, WIPO Case No. D2008-1393. Once a complainant makes out such a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent, though the burden of proof always remains on the complainant. If the respondent fails to come forward with relevant evidence showing rights or legitimate interests, the complainant will have sustained its burden under the second element of the UDRP.

From the record in this case, it is evident that Respondent was, and is, aware of Complainant and its AXA that Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name.

trademarks, and does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In addition,
Complainant asserts that Respondent is not an authorized reseller and is not related to Complainant.

page 5

In addition, Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or obtained from Complainant’s website.
services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, at the time of the filing of the Complaint, the
Domain Name reverted to a webpage that mirrored or duplicated Complainant’s website and advertised

The website the Domain Name to which reverted had an identical look and feel to that of Complainant’s official website at the domain name <axa.com>, attempted to impersonate Complainant’s website and offered AXA-branded services that Complainant provides, thus potentially misleading Internet users into thinking that the website has been authorized or operated by or affiliated with Complainant. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity here, claimed impersonation/passing off can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

In addition, the Domain Name reverted to third party websites that offered the Domain Name for sale. At the time of the Decision, the Domain Name reverts to a third party website offering it for sale. Such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use and cannot

under the circumstances confer on Respondent any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. See,
e.g., Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. v. Charles Duke / Oneandone Private Registration, WIPO Case No.
D2013-0875.

Moreover, the nature of the Domain Name, including Complainant’s trademark and the term “insure” which may refer to AXA services and products purportedly offered by Complainant, is misleading and carries a risk of implied affiliation. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

Accordingly, Complainant has provided evidence supporting its prima facie claim that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent has failed to produce countervailing evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain

Name, and Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that Respondent’s actions indicate that Respondent registered and is using the Domain
Name in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances indicating bad faith registration and use on the part of a domain name registrant, namely:

“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the
purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is
the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration
in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from
reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such
conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a
competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet
users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s
mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or
service on your website or location.”

page 6

The Panel finds that Complainant has provided ample evidence to show that registration and use of the AXA trademarks long predate the registration of the Domain Name. Complainant is also well established and known. Indeed, the record shows that Complainant’s AXA trademarks and related products and services are widely known and recognized. In addition, the addition of the term “insure” to Complainant’s trademark in the Domain Name is directly related to Complainant’s industry and business activities. Therefore, Respondent was aware of the AXA trademarks when it registered the Domain Name. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2; see also TTT Moneycorp Limited v. Privacy Gods / Privacy Gods Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-1973.

The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s awareness of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of registration suggests bad faith. See Red Bull GmbH v. Credit du Léman SA, Jean-Denis Deletraz, WIPO Case No. D2011-2209; Nintendo of America Inc v. Marco Beijen, Beijen Consulting, Pokemon Fan Clubs Org., and Pokemon Fans Unite, WIPO Case No. D2001-1070; and BellSouth Intellectual Property

Corporation v. Serena, Axel, WIPO Case No. D2006-0007.

Further, the registration of the Domain Name incorporating Complainant’s AXA trademark in its entirety suggests Respondent’s actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the AXA trademarks at the time of registration of the Domain Name and its effort to opportunistically capitalize on the registration and use of the

Domain Name.

Moreover, Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name to confuse and mislead consumers looking Complaint, the Domain Name initially reverted to a website impersonating Complainant by featuring Complainant’s AXA mark, duplicating Complainant’s copyrighted images, texts, and purportedly offering AXA-branded products and services. The use of the AXA mark in the Domain Name is intended to capture Internet traffic from Internet users who are looking for Complainant’s products and services. Therefore, by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s webpage by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s AXA mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website. Moreover, Respondent offered the Domain Name for sale on third party websites. All these actions may result in tarnishing Complainant’s reputation and good will in the industry.
for bona fide and well-known AXA products and services of Complainant or authorized partners of

Further, panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity here, claimed impersonation/passing off constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4.

Last, the Panel also notes the failure of Respondent to respond to the case and desist letters and to submit a

Response.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith and

Complainant succeeds under the third element of paragraph 4(a) 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 Domain Name <axainsure.com> be transferred to Complainant.

/Kimberley Chen Nobles/
Kimberley Chen Nobles
Sole Panelist
Date: March 25, 2024