Conservatoire National Des Arts et Metiers v Huynh Thi Thuy Ngan

WIPO Case No. D2025-0550

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Conservatoire National Des Arts et Metiers v. HUYNH THI THUY NGAN

Case No. D2025-0550

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Conservatoire National Des Arts et Metiers, France, represented by INSCRIPTA,

France.

The Respondent is HUYNH THI THUY NGAN, Viet Nam.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <cnam-iim.org> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was f iled with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 11, 2025. On February 12, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 15, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response, disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which dif fered f rom the named Respondent (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY, Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 17, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amendment to the Complaint on February 17, 2025.

The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisf ied 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 notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 21, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 13, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s default on March 14, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on March 21, 2025. The Panel f inds 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, which describes itself as a “French Public Establishment supervised by the French of Management, known as “Le Cnam-IIM” or “CNAM-IIM”, with a website at “

The Complainant owns a number of registered trade marks for CNAM including French trade mark No. 4012964, registered on December 27, 2013, in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42. The Complainant also owns French trade mark No. 3236408 for I.I.M. INSTITUT INTERNATIONAL DU MANAGEMENT, registered on July 15, 2003, in classes 35, 41 and 42.

The disputed domain name was registered on October 23, 2024.

On November 12, 2024, the Complainant sent a legal letter by email to the Respondent. There was no response.

As of February 11, 2025, the disputed domain name redirected to a gambling website.

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.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the f irst 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 trade mark 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 trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the CNAM 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, “iim”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel f inds the addition of such term does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

page 3

The Panel f inds the f irst 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 of ten 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 satisf ied 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.

As to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, and as further discussed in section 6C below, the Panel considers that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, confuse and prof it f rom Internet users seeking the Complainant’s goods and/or services. Such use of the disputed domain name could not be said to be bona f ide.

Nor is there any evidence that paragraphs 4(c)(ii) or (iii) of the Policy are relevant in the circumstances of this case.

The Panel f inds 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 Panel’s view, the Respondent set out to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

In the absence of a plausible explanation f rom the Respondent as to why it has registered the disputed domain name and has used it for gambling services that have no obvious connection with the disputed domain name, the Panel thinks it reasonable to conclude that most likely the Respondent was seeking to take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s mark by prof iting f rom traf f ic intended for the Complainant.

The likelihood of confusion is not diminished by the probability that users arriving at the Respondent’s site will realise that the site is not connected with the Complainant. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy is concerned with the intentional attracting of Internet users. Here, the disputed domain name incorporates the

Complainant’s trade mark and the term “-iim” which corresponds to the abbreviation of the name of an educational establishment operated by the Complainant, Institut International du Management, which, in the absence of any explanation by the Respondent, suggests to the Panel that the Respondent intended to prof it f rom at least some of the traf f ic intended for the Complainant.

page 4

The Panel f inds 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 <cnam-iim.org> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Adam Taylor/ Adam Taylor Sole Panelist Date: April 4, 2025