Deutscher Sparkassen- und Giroverband e.V. v Vigor Balder

WIPO Case No. D2024-1571

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Deutscher Sparkassen- und Giroverband e.V. v. Vigor Balder

Case No. D2024-1571

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Deutscher Sparkassen- und Giroverband e.V., Germany, represented by Bird & Bird

LLP, Germany.

The Respondent is Vigor Balder, Monaco.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <sparkassa.org> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 15, 2024. connection with the disputed domain name. On April 15, 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 (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY, Privacy service provided Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 23, 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 April 26, 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 May 6, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 26, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 30, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on June 6, 2024. 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 an association registered in Berlin and the umbrella organization of the well-known Sparkassen-Finanzgruppe (“Savings Banks Finance Group”). With around 520 companies and a combined business volume of around EUR 3,040 billion, the Sparkassen-Finanzgruppe is one of the largest groups of credit institutions in Germany. The Complainant has operated under its company name since 1953.

The Complainant is the owner of various SPARKASSE word marks, including the German trademark Reg.
No. 30208101 (registered on March 28, 2002).

The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on September 5, 2022, and, at the time of filing of the Complaint, resolved to a website featuring the Complainant’s logo and purporting to offer the same financial services as the Complainant’s group (overnight money, fixed-term deposits, retirement funds).

On December 23, 2022, the German banking supervisory authority published a warning that the operator of the website connected with the disputed domain name does not have a license to provide financial services. Furthermore, the Complainant has presented evidence that the company listed in the imprint has no

connection with the Respondent’s website. The Complainant has obtained a preliminary injunction against

the Privacy service from the Regional Court of Hamburg.

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 has not submitted any reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

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.

A domain name is “identical or confusingly similar” to a trademark for the purposes of the Policy when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of other terms in the domain name (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2000-0662).

page 3

This includes the replacement of the final letter “e” in the Complainant’s trademark by the letter “a”, which is
considered a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark (i.e., “typosquatting”). See

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9.

The Panel finds that 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 that 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 evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel also notes that the composition of the disputed domain name creates a risk of implied affiliation.

The Panel finds that 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.

Under the circumstances of this case, including the display of the Complainant’s logo on the Respondent’s website, it can be inferred that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name.

The evidence and allegations submitted by the Complainant support a finding that the Respondent was engaged in an attempt to attract Internet users to its website for its own commercial gain. The Respondent therefore used the disputed domain name in bad faith (see Claudie Pierlot v. Yinglong Ma, WIPO Case No. D2018-2466).

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

page 4

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 <sparkassa.org> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Tobias Zuberbühler/
Tobias Zuberbühler
Sole Panelist
Date: June 20, 2024