CMA CGM v Shreepad Awate

WIPO Case No. D2023-2061

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

CMA CGM v. Shreepad Awate

Case No. D2023-2061

1. The Parties

The Complainant is CMA CGM, France, internally represented.

The Respondent is Shreepad Awate, India.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <cma-cgm.sbs> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 9, 2023. On
May 10, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the Domain Name. On May 10, 2023, 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, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and
contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on
May 22, 2023, 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 May 26, 2023.

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 May 26, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 15, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 11, 2023.

page 2

The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on July 17, 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is based in Marseille, France. It is one of the largest container shipping and transport groups in the world, and one of the leaders in logistics. The Complainant operates in more than 160 countries, through a network of over 755 agencies, with more than 110,000 employees worldwide. The group serves over 420 of the world’s 521 commercial ports.

The Complainant is the proprietor of a number of registered trademarks comprising CMA CGM including countries including India.

France trademark number 97673130 stylised word mark CMACGM registered on October 3, 1997 and

The Domain Name was registered on March 10, 2023. It does not resolve to an active website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its CMA CGM
trademark (the “Mark”), that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain

Name, and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the
Complainant must prove that:

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

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

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

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has uncontested rights in the Mark, both by virtue of its trademark registrations and as a result of the goodwill and reputation acquired through its use of the Mark for over many years. Ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.sbs”, the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s CMA CGM

mark save for the hyphen. The inclusion of the hyphen does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the
Complainant has rights.

page 3

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has submitted strong prima facie evidence that the Respondent can have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Domain Name is not being used for an active website and the Respondent has not made any use of the Domain Name that might give rise to such rights or interests. The Domain Name is identical to the Mark, which comprises two groups of three letters, is distinctive, and could only refer to the Complainant. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name.

The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint and has accordingly failed to counter the prima facie case established by the Complainant. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel considers that there is no doubt that given the notoriety of the Mark, and its unique nature, the Respondent must have had the Complainant and its rights in the mark in mind when it registered the Domain Name, and that it did so with the intention of using the Domain Name to deceive Internet users into believing that it was registered by or associated with the Complainant. The Panel cannot conceive of a legitimate use to which the Respondent could put the Domain Name. Although the Respondent has made no active use of the Domain Name, section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Overview 3.0), notes that, from the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. It depends on the facts of the case, including “(i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put”.

The Complainant’s CMA CGM mark is distinctive and has been used by the Complainant for many years; there has been no response to the Complaint; the Respondent registered the Domain Name using the privacy service Withheld for Privacy ehf; and in the Panel’s view there is no good faith use to which the Domain Name could be put. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

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 <cma-cgm.sbs> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Ian Lowe/
Ian Lowe
Sole Panelist
Date: July 30, 2023