Chambre De Commerce Internationale v Host Master, Njalla Okta LLC

WIPO Case No. D2025-2535

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Chambre De Commerce Internationale v. Host Master, Njalla Okta LLC

Case No. D2025-2535

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Chambre De Commerce Internationale, France, represented by FIDAL, France.

The Respondent is Host Master, Njalla Okta LLC, Saint Kitts and Nevis.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <icc-international.institute> is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 27, 2025.
On June 30, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On June 30, 2025, 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 (TUCOWS, INC) and contact information in the Complaint. The
Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 30, 2025, 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 July 2, 2025.

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 July 3, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 23, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 25, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Olga Zalomiy as the sole panelist in this matter on July 30, 2025. 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

The Complainant is a world business organization representing enterprises from all sectors in more than 100 countries. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the ICC word and ICC word and design marks, such as:

-the International registration No. 590125 for the design mark ICC, registered on August 10, 1992;
-the International registration No. 1235263, for the design mark ICC, registered on January 26, 2016;

-the International registration No. 1706726, for the design mark ICC, registered on May 31, 2022.

The Complainant also owns several domain name registrations incorporating its trademarks, such as:

˂iccwbo.org>, <iccinstitute.com>, <iccconference.com˃.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on February 9, 2025. The disputed domain name
resolves to a website at “ which replicates blue/white colors of the

Complainant’s official website and displays the Complainant’s ICC trademark and logo.

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 its trademarks and domain names because the dominant element “ICC” is reproduced in the disputed domain name in its entirety.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because (i) the Respondent is not related to the Complainant in any way and has not been authorized to use the Complainant’s Trademarks; (ii) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; (iii) the Respondent has not been using the disputed domain name for bona fide offering of goods or services; and (iv) the disputed domain name directs to a fraudulent website.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, arguing that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to take advantage of the Complainant’s trademark reputation. The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name directs to a website that reproduces the Complainant’s trademarks without authorization and the content of the website includes non-working tabs for privacy policy and terms of service. The Complainant argues that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to damage the Complainant’s reputation and client’s reputation. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name infringes upon the Complainant’s trademark rights and existing domain names. The Complainant argues that, given the well-known nature of its trademarks, any use of the disputed domain name is likely to cause confusion among users. The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a confusion with the Complainant’s trademark, company name and domain names. The Complainant claims that the Respondent’s use of its trademark on the website is likely to mislead Internet users into believing there is an association with the Complainant, thereby facilitating potential scams and phishing activities.

page 3

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed in this proceeding, the Complainant must prove each of the following elements with respect to the disputed domain name:

(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.

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

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 entirety of the ICC mark is reproduced 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, “international”, 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 mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.
The inclusion of the generic Top-Level Domain “.institute” is typically disregarded in the context of the
confusing similarity assessment, being a technical requirement for registration. WIPO Overview 3.0, section

1.11.1.

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.

page 4

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.

The evidence on record shows that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not been authorized by the Complainant to use the Complainant’s trademark in a domain name. Nor is the Respondent making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name or uses it for bona fide offering of goods or services, because the disputed domain name directs to a website which poses for a website associated with the Complainant. The website under the disputed domain name displays the Complainant’s word and design trademark and replicates the color scheme of the Complainant’s official website. Furthermore, as discussed more fully below, the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering domain names corresponding to marks held by the Complainant.

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 registered the disputed domain name incorporating the Complainant’s ICC trademark and the descriptive term “institute” many years after the Complainant’s first trademark registration. The Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the absence of a credible explanation for choosing the disputed domain name, and the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s trademarks on its website, which replicates look and feel of the Complainant’s website, all indicate that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.

The UDRP establishes that, for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), “bad faith” registration and use of a domain name can be established by a showing of circumstances indicating that the respondent is using the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location, or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location. See Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv).

Prior UDRP panels have found “the following types of evidence to support a finding that a respondent has registered a domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark: (i) actual confusion, (ii) seeking to cause confusion (including by technical means beyond the domain name itself) for the respondent’s commercial benefit, even if unsuccessful, (iii) the lack of a respondent’s own rights to or legitimate interests in a domain name, […], and (vi) absence of any conceivable good faith use.” WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4.

Here, the website at the disputed domain name is designed to look like a website of an official or authorized representative of the Complainant. The Respondent’s website prominently displays the Complainant’s ICC trademark and logo, as well as uses the blue/white color scheme of the Complainant’s official website. As discussed, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to

attract, for commercial gain, the Internet users to the Respondent’s 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 the Respondent’s website or location, or of a product or service on the Respondent’s
website or location.

page 5

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.2. The evidence shows that the Respondent was a respondent in a different domain name case, in which it registered and was using another domain name incorporating the Complainant’s ICC trademark in bad faith1.

Furthermore, the UDRP establishes that, for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii), “bad faith” registration and use abusive domain name registration. See
of a domain name can be established by a showing of circumstances indicating that the Respondent
registered the disputed domain name to prevent the owner of the trademark from reflecting the mark in a

corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct. Prior

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 disputed domain name <icc-international.institute> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Olga Zalomiy/ Olga Zalomiy Sole Panelist Date: August 6, 2025

1 Chambre de Commerce Internationale v. Host Master, Njalla Okta LLC, WIPO Case No. D2025-1629.