AXA SA v John HU, AXA0101 LLC

WIPO Case No. D2023-0626

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

AXA SA v. John HU, AXA0101 LLC

Case No. D2023-0626

1. The Parties

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

Respondent is John HU, AXA0101 LLC, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

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

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 10, 2023. On February 10, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 13, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details and contact information in the Complaint.

The Center verified that 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 March 3, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 23, 2023. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on March 27, 2023.

The Center appointed Gabriel F. Leonardos as the sole panelist in this matter on March 31, 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.

page 2

4. Factual Background

Complainant is an insurance company based in France. Complainant operates in 50 countries, employing 110,447 people worldwide, Complainant is a world leader in insurance, saving and asset management, all under the trademark AXA.

Complainant owns a wide portfolio of trademark registrations internationally containing the word mark AXA.

Some examples of Complainant’s trademark registrations can be found below:

Registration International

Trademark Jurisdictions Date of Registration

No. Classes

International (AT, AZ, BA, BX, BY, CH, CZ, DE, DZ, EG, ES, HR, HU, IT, KP,

490030 AXA 35, 36, 39 December 05, 1984

LI, MA, MC, ME, PT, RO,
RS, RU, SD, SI, SK, SM,
UA, VN)
International (AU, CO,

EM, GB, GH, JP, KH, MG,

AXA 35, 36, 37,

1519781 MX, NO, OA, OM, PH, May 29, 2019

(+design)	SG, TH, TR, US, CH, CN,	39, 44, 45
DZ, KE, MA, RU, UA)
AXA

000373894 European Union 35, 36 July 29, 1998

(+design)

008772766	AXA	European Union	35, 36	September 07, 2012
1270658	AXA	France	35, 36, 42	January 10, 1984

Complainant is well known around the world as AXA, providing services online and in-person. Complainant owns and operates websites with several domain names, such as <axa.com>.

The disputed domain name was registered on August 28, 2022 and resolves to a webpage in which a parking page containing Pay-Per-Click (“PPC”) links to third party websites is displayed.

5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant

Complainant pleads that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark AXA, since it fully incorporates Complainant’s trademark AXA.

Complainant affirms that Respondent creates a confusion, considering specially that the disputed domain name uses the trademark AXA in its entirety with the addition of the terms “digital” and “services”, as consumers may believe that this domain name is linked to Complainant, since Complainant provides online services worldwide.

Therefore, according to Complainant, the disputed domain name presents a risk of confusion to consumers, who will likely believe it is linked with Complainant’s trademark AXA, fulfilling paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy and paragraph 3(b)(viii) and 3(b)(ix)(1) of the Rules.

page 3

In addition, Complainant states that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, nor is Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name. Further, Respondent has not been authorized, or licensed to use Complainant’s trademark AXA as a domain name nor is Respondent associated with Complainant.

Complainant observes that the website that resolves from the disputed domain name is a pay-per-click parking website, which does not mean a noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

This way, Complainant states that no legitimate use of the disputed domain name could be reasonably claimed by Respondent, thus paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy and paragraph 3(b)(ix)(3) of the Rules have been fulfilled.

Moreover, Complainant states that (i) the fact that the disputed domain name contains the trademark AXA in its entirety would indicate bad faith; (ii) Respondent was aware of Complainant’s rights to the trademark AXA, given that it is internationally well known; (iii) there is no conceivable legitimate use of the disputed domain name by Respondent, considering that it includes the trademark AXA in its entirety and resolves to a website which is a PPC parking page containing keywords that lead to sponsored links, which has led to the conclusion of a bad faith registration and use in previous UDRP decisions.

Thus, the requirements for the registration and use in bad faith of the disputed domain name would have been fulfilled pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

To succeed in a UDRP complaint, Complainant must demonstrate that all the elements listed in paragraph
4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied, as following:

(i)        the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and

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

The burden of proving these elements is upon Complainant.

Respondent had 20 days to submit a response in accordance with paragraph 5(a) of the Rules and failed to do so. Paragraph 5(f) of the Rules establishes that if a respondent does not respond to the complaint, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the panel’s decision shall be based upon the complaint.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has duly proven that it owns prior trademark rights for AXA, and that the disputed domain name Complainant’s trademark AXA since the trademark AXA is fully integrated in the disputed domain name, and the terms “digital” and “services” do not prevent the trademark from being recognizable in the disputed domain name.

is constituted by the trademark AXA in its entirety with the addition of the terms “digital” and “services”.

Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark AXA, and so the requirement of the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied.

page 4

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The consensus view of UDRP panels on the burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is summarized in section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 as follows: “[w]hile 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.”

In this case, noting the facts and contentions listed above, the Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, so the burden of production shifts to Respondent. As Respondent has not replied to Complainant’s

contentions, the Panel has considered Complainant’s unrebutted prima facie case to be sufficient to
demonstrate that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Furthermore, Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in the context of a bona fide offering of goods and services that could demonstrate rights or legitimate interests, since the evidence shows that the disputed domain name resolves to a website, which displays PPC links to Internet users.

Additionally, the Panel notes that the composition of the disputed domain name, wholly incorporating business, carries a risk of implied affiliation (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1).

Therefore, the Panel finds that the requirement of the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is also satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists a number of circumstances that, without limitation, shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

Respondent has registered the disputed domain name that fully incorporates Complainant’s well-known trademark AXA, plus the addition of the terms “digital” and “services”. The Panel finds that Respondent was or should have been aware of Complainant’s rights to AXA at the time of the registration as Complainant enjoys an international reputation with the use of the referred trademark.

The Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intention of attracting
Internet users in search of authentic AXA services.

Moreover, the Panel finds that the terms “digital” and “services” accompanying the trademark AXA in the disputed domain name consists of a reference that is linked with online services provided by Complainant, which indicates that the use of the trademark AXA in the disputed domain name in the present case, unauthorized by Complainant, is in bad faith.

In addition, the present circumstances allow a finding of bad faith registration and use, since the evidence
indicates that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to display a parking page with multiple PPC links.
See Associazione Radio Maria v. Mary Martinez / Domains by Proxy, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2010-2181.

Thus, considering that (i) the disputed domain name is formed by Complainant’s well-known trademark AXA with the addition of the terms “digital” and “services”; and (ii) the disputed domain name is used to divert to a website in which several PPC links are displayed, enabling Respondent to obtain illegitimate and

unauthorized commercial gain from accesses to the links; this Panel concludes that Respondent is trying to

page 5

obtain profit from Complainant’s trademark AXA reputation by diverting its clients into accessing the PPC
links – which indicates bad faith in Respondent’s actions.

In light of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the requirement of the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied.

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 <axadigitalservices.com> be transferred to Complainant.

/Gabriel F. Leonardos/
Gabriel F. Leonardos
Sole Panelist
Date: April 14, 2023