AXA SA v Nathan Lenau, login-axa.com

WIPO Case No. D2024-4875

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

AXA SA v. Nathan Lenau, login-axa.com

Case No. D2024-4875

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Nathan Lenau, login-axa.com, United States of America (“United States”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <login-axa.com> is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 26, 2024. On November 26, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 26, 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) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 28, 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 November 28, 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 November 29, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 19, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 23, 2024.

The Center appointed Marilena Comanescu as the sole panelist in this matter on January 9, 2025. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and

page 2

Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the

Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is the holding company of the AXA Group. The AXA Group has a strong, long-standing history, with roots dating back in the 18th century. After a succession of mergers, acquisitions ad name changes involving some of the biggest insurance companies around the world, the trade name AXA was introduced in 1985. The Complainant is present in 51 countries and does business in diversified geographic regions and markets across the globe, notably in Europe, Africa, North America and Asia-Pacific, employs 110,302 people worldwide, and is serving 93 million customers.

Since 1988, AXA is traded on the Paris Stock Exchange and, in 1996, it becomes listed on the New York Stock Exchange. For years the trademark AXA was considered as a global leading insurance brand, for example in 2023 the mark was ranked the 43th among the 100 best global brands, according to the

Interbrand ranking, and the value of the brand is representing over USD 15,700 million.

The Complainant owns trademark registrations for AXA, such as the following:

- the International Trademark Registration number 490030 for AXA (word), registered on December 5, 1984,
covering services in International Classes 35, 36, 39; and
- the International Trademark Registration number 1519781 for AXA (figurative), registered on May 29, 2019,
covering services in International Classes 35, 36, 37, 39, 44, and 45.

The Complainant owns numerous domain names incorporating AXA, such as <axa.com> registered on October 23, 1995, <axa.fr> registered on May 20, 1996, or <axa.net> registered on November 1, 1997.

The disputed domain name was registered on November 6, 2023, and, at the time of filing the Complaint, it resolved to an error page.

Prior to commencing the present procedures, on December 4, 2023 and on December 20, 2023, the domain name. No response was received.

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 awareness of the trademark AXA is wide regarding the
worldwide reputation that enjoys the Complainant and that the AXA sign is well-known around the world in
the field of insurance and financial services; the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its
trademark since it incorporates the trademark together with the generic expression “log in” which refers
directly to the activities of the Complainant; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name; the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith
mainly because, obviously the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s AXA trademarks at the time that
he acquired the disputed domain name due to the undeniable reputation of the Complainant and its
trademarks and in order to take predatory advantage of the Complainant’s reputation, the Complainant’s
mark have strong reputation and are widely known, and the Respondent did not answer the letters of formal
notice sent by the Complainant prior to filing the Complaint.
B. Respondent

page 3

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Under the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that:

(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 the disputed domain name; and

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

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

Based on the available record, the Panel finds 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 Panel finds the AXA mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Although the addition of other terms, here “login”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term/s does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 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.

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. 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.

page 4

The composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation, reproducing the Complainant’s well known mark together with the term “login”. UDRP panels have largely held that such composition cannot constitute fair use if it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

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 disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, with knowledge of the Complainant, its trademark, and business particularly because the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s internationally known trademark, is very similar to the Complainant’s domain names, and trade name, and the Complainant’s trademark predates the registration of the disputed domain name with more than 35 years.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

At the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name was not connected to an active website.

UDRP panels 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. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness and international reputation of the Complainant’s trademark; the composition of the disputed domain name (i.e., the Complainant’s mark together with the term “login”); the Respondent’s failure to respond to the present proceedings and to the Complainant’s prior letters; the Respondent’s provision of inaccurate contact details in the WhoIs (since the Written Notice by the Center could not be delivered); the implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain name may be put, 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. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3.

Previous UDRP panels have found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a widely known trademark can, by itself, constitute a presumption of bad faith for the purpose of Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0., section 3.1.4.

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, <login-axa.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

/Marilena Comanescu/
Marilena Comanescu
Sole Panelist
Date: January 21, 2025