AXA SA v. Huade Wang
WIPO Case No. D2022-1289
•10-06-2022
| ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER |
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
AXA SA v. Huade Wang
Case No. D2022-1289
1. The Parties
The Complainant is AXA SA, France, represented by Selarl Candé - Blanchard - Ducamp, France.
The Respondent is Huade Wang, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <axafinancecredit.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 April 11, 2022. On April 11, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 12, 2022, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 19, 2022, 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 April 19, 2022.
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 Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 26, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 16, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 18, 2022.
The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on May 27, 2022. 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 Complainant is in the insurance business. It owns the trademark AXA, which it has registered in several jurisdictions around the world, including the European Union (Reg. No. 8772766, registered on September 7, 2012).
According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on August 4, 2021. The holding the disputed domain name.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element requires the Panel to consider two issues: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant mark; and, second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark. This element under the Policy functions primarily as a standing requirement. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.
A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark
certificate belong to its respective owner. See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., Les Publications Conde
Nast S.A. v. Voguechen, WIPO Case No. D2014-0657. The Complainant has demonstrated its rights in the
AXA mark by providing evidence of its trademark registrations.
The disputed domain name incorporates the AXA mark in its entirety. This is sufficient for showing confusing
similarity under the Policy. The presence of the additional words “finance” and “credit” in the disputed
domain name does not eliminate the confusing similarity.
Accordingly, the Complainant has established this first element under the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel evaluates this element of the Policy by first looking to see whether the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of production of demonstrating rights or
page 3
legitimate interests shifts to the Respondent (with the burden of proof always remaining with the
Complainant).
On this point, the Complainant asserts, among other things, that: (1) the Complainant has never licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademarks or to register any domain name comprising the Complainant’s trademarks, (2) the Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name or even associated with the name AXA, whereas the AXA trademark appears to be well-known, and (3) the disputed domain name is not used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, but instead is being passively held by the Respondent, who has not made or taken any preparatory steps to make, any legitimate commercial for fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made the required prima facie showing. The Respondent has not presented evidence to overcome this prima facie showing. And nothing in the record otherwise tilts the balance in the Respondent’s favor.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established this second element under the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Because the Complainant’s AXA mark is well-known, and is registered in jurisdictions around the world, the name. In the circumstances of this case, without the benefit of any explanation whatsoever from the Respondent as to a possible good faith use of the disputed domain name, such a showing is sufficient to establish bad faith registration of the disputed domain name.
| Where a disputed domain name is “so obviously connected with such a well-known name and products…its | The circumstances also demonstrate bad faith use of the disputed domain name in terms of the Policy. a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3). |
| 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 <axafinancecredit.com> be transferred to the Complainant. | |
| /Evan D. Brown/ Evan D. Brown Sole Panelist Date: June 10, 2022 |
0
0
0