Eurazeo v 杨智强 (Zhi Qiang Yang)

WIPO Case No. D2023-2506

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Eurazeo v. 杨智强 (Zhi Qiang Yang)

Case No. D2023-2506

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Eurazeo, France, represented by IP Twins, France.

The Respondent is 杨智强 (Zhi Qiang Yang), China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <euraze.com> is registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology

Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint in English was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 9,

2023. On June 9, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On June 12, 2023, 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) and contact information in the Complaint.
The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 13, 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 amended Complaint in English on June 19, 2023.

On June 13, 2023, the Center sent an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of
the proceeding. The Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding on

July 19, 2023. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 in English
and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 22, 2023. In accordance with the

Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 12, 2023. The Respondent did not submit a

response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 13, 2023.

page 2

The Center appointed Joseph Simone as the sole panelist in this matter on July 18, 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, Eurazeo, is a French company and is a leading global investment group formed in April
2001 following the merger of Azeo and Eurafrance. The Complainant has a diversified portfolio of EUR 22.7

billion in assets under management, including EUR 16.0 billion from third parties, invested in 450 companies.

The Complainant has an extensive global portfolio of EURAZEO trade marks, including the following:

- International Trade Mark Registration No. 759748 for EURAZEO, registered on April 25, 2001, in Classes 35 and 36, designated to China, amongst other jurisdictions.

The disputed domain name <euraze.com> was registered on April 30, 2023.

The Complainant’s evidence indicates that at the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name

resolved to a parking page of pay-per-click commercial links. At the time of this decision, the disputed

domain name continues to resolve to a parking page of pay-per-click commercial links.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts that it has prior rights in the EURAZEO trade mark and that it has acquired a strong reputation in its field of business.

The Complainant further notes that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is confusingly

similar to the Complainant’s EURAZEO trade mark.

The Complainant asserts that it has not authorized the Respondent to use its EURAZEO mark, and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has used, or undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

The Complainant further asserts that, considering the evidence, it is implausible that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in good faith, and that any use of the disputed domain name must be in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1. Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding

In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of the Rules:

page 3

“[…] the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement,

subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the

administrative proceeding.”

In this case, the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Hence, the default language of the proceeding should be Chinese.

However, the Complainant filed the Complaint in English, and requested that English be the language of the proceeding, for the following reasons:

- The Complainant is a French entity and is not in a position to conduct the present proceeding in

Chinese;

- The Complainant submits that requiring the translation of the Complaint and additional documents would add additional expense and delay, which is not consistent with the Policy; and

- Paragraphs 10(b) and (c) of the Rules require the panel to ensure that the parties are treated with

equality, that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case and that the administrative proceeding
takes place with due expedition. Prior UDRP panels have decided that the choice of language of the
proceeding should not create an undue burden for the parties.

The Respondent was notified in both Chinese and English of the language of the proceeding and the commencement of the proceeding and did not comment on the language of the proceeding or submit any response in either Chinese or English.

Considering the circumstances of this case, the Panel has determined that the language of the proceeding shall be English, and as such, the Panel has issued this decision in English. The Panel further finds that this determination should not cause any prejudice to either Party and should ensure that the proceeding takes place with due expedition.

6.2. Substantive Elements

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel acknowledges that the Complainant has established rights in the EURAZEO trade marks in many jurisdictions around the world.

Disregarding the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”, the disputed domain name is identical to the first six letters of the Complainant’s trade mark EURAZEO.

Section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition

(“WIPO Overview 3.0”) makes clear that a domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional

misspelling of a trade mark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for

purposes of the first element. The Panel considers that the disputed domain name is an obvious misspelling

of the Complainant’s trade marks as it excludes the final letter of the Complainant’s trade marks but is

otherwise identical to the Complainant’s trade marks.

The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the name is identical or confusingly similar to its marks.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a complainant is required to make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. Once a prima facie case is made out, the

page 4

respondent carries the burden of producing evidence in support of its rights or legitimate interests in the
domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant can be deemed to have satisfied paragraph
4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

The Complainant asserts that it has not authorized the Respondent to use its trade marks and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has used, or undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Thus, the Complainant has satisfactorily established a prima facie case.

The Respondent did not file a response and has not provided any evidence that would help to demonstrate that he has used or made preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to notice of this action. Nor has the Respondent submitted any evidence to show that he has been commonly known by the disputed domain name or that he is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

At the time of filing of the Complaint and drafting of this Decision, the disputed domain name resolves to a parked page that includes pay-per-click links.

As such, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has failed to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie showing

of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that none of the

circumstances of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy is applicable in this case.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances in particular but without limitation, shall be considered as evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the

purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant (the
owner of the trade mark or service mark) or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in

excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii)       circumstances indicating that the respondent registered the domain name in order to prevent the

owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided
that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii)      circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the

purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) circumstances indicating that the respondent is using the domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its 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 its website or location.

The examples of bad faith registration and use set forth in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are not meant to be exhaustive of all circumstances in which bad faith may be found. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. The overriding objective of the Policy is to curb the abusive registration of domain names in circumstances where the registrant seeks to profit from and exploit the trade mark of another party. See Match.com, LP v. Bill Zag and NWLAWS.ORG, WIPO Case No. D2004-0230.

page 5

For reasons discussed under this and the preceding heading, the Panel believes that the Respondent’s

conduct in this case constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name.

When the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, the EURAZEO trade marks were already

widely known and directly associated with the Complainant’s activities. UDRP panels have consistently

found that the mere registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos) to a famous or widely known trade mark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4.

Given the extensive prior use and fame of the Complainant’s marks, in the Panel’s view, the Respondent should have been aware of the Complainant’s marks when registering the disputed domain name.

In addition, the disputed domain name consists of an obvious typo-squatting variation of the Complainant’s

official website associated with the domain name <eurazeo.com>. The Respondent has also provided no

evidence to justify his choice of the term “euraze” in the disputed domain name.

In light of the foregoing, it would be unreasonable to conclude that the Respondent was unaware of the

Complainant’s trade marks at the time he registered the disputed domain name.

The Panel is therefore of the view that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full

knowledge of the Complainant’s trade mark rights, and is using the disputed domain name for a website with

pay-per-click commercial links to intentionally attract Internet users to his website or other online locations for

commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade marks.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed 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 disputed domain name <euraze.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Joseph Simone/

Joseph Simone

Sole Panelist
Date: July 31, 2023