Europcar International v Smith Wiley

WIPO Case No. D2024-5119

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Europcar International v. Smith Wiley

Case No. D2024-5119

1. The Parties

Complainant is Europcar International, France, represented by Taylor Wessing LLP, United Kingdom.

Respondent is Smith Wiley, Ireland.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is <europcar.fun> which is registered with West263 International Limited (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 12, 2024. On December 12, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 13, 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 in the Complaint (Name and address information redacted for privacy). The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on December 13, 2024, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 17, 2024.

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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 18, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 7, 2025. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on January 9, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Gerardo Saavedra as the sole panelist in this matter on January 16, 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

Complainant is a French company that forms part of the Europcar group of companies which specialises in car rental and mobility services.

Complainant has rights over the EUROPCAR mark for which it holds, among others, European Union
registration No. 003993789, registered on August 4, 2006, in classes 12, 36, and 39; and United States of
America registration No. 1066416, registered on May 24, 1977, in class 39. Complainant also has rights
over the EUROPCAR figurative mark for which it holds International registration No. 708414, registered on
January 8, 1999, in class 39.

The disputed domain name was registered on November 6, 2024. By the time the Complaint was filed, the disputed domain name did not resolve to an active website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy and requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant. Complainant’s most relevant assertions may be summarized as follows.

Complainant adopted its current name in 2018. The Europcar group began operations under the Europcar brand in France in 1949 and now operates across a network of 170 countries worldwide with approximately 200 airport locations in Europe and 600 around the world.

The Europcar group owns over 300 mark registrations containing EUROPCAR throughout the world, and is also the owner of the domain name <europcar.com> which was created on March 24, 1997.

The disputed domain name consists in its entirety of the word “europcar”. The disputed domain name is therefore identical to Complainant’s EUROPCAR mark.

Respondent lacks rights or any legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent cannot establish that it has any of the legitimate interests listed in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name and does not own any mark comprising the word “europcar”. Complainant has no connection with Respondent or the disputed domain name and has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use Complainant’s intellectual property.

The disputed domain name does not host a website. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of it, so cannot therefore have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Respondent is cybersquatting on the disputed domain name, possibly in the hope of obtaining a future payment from Complainant.

The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. There is no plausible use of the disputed domain name that would not interfere with Complainant’s marks. Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name will disrupt the business and image of the Europcar group by misleading

page 3

members of the public into believing that the disputed domain name is connected with Complainant or the Europcar group, and/or it will otherwise obstruct Internet users searching for genuine Europcar websites.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”.

The lack of response from Respondent does not automatically result in a favorable decision for Complainant (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.3). The burden for Complainant, under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, is to show: (i) that the

disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds 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 disputed domain name incorporates in its entirety Complainant’s EUROPCAR mark without any
additional element. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to said mark for the purposes of the

Policy (WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.7 and 1.11.1).

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

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).

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence in the case file of any of those, or of any other circumstances giving rise to a possible right to or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name by Respondent, but rather the opposite may be validly inferred.

The nature of the disputed domain name, identical to Complainant’s mark, carries a high risk of implied affiliation since Internet users may mistakenly identify it as belonging to or associated with Complainant, or the Europcar group of companies (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1). The Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain

page 4

name.1 Respondent has not rebutted 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.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1).

Having reviewed the case file, the Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. Taking into consideration that the registration and use of Complainant’s EUROPCAR mark preceded the creation of the disputed domain name by a number of years, the international presence of said mark, and the composition of the disputed domain name, the Panel is of the view that Respondent deliberately targeted Complainant’s mark at the time it registered the disputed domain name, which is indicative of bad faith.2

The evidence also shows that the disputed domain name did not resolve to any active website. However, it seems to the Panel that there is no basis in the case file to conceive a good faith use of the disputed domain name by Respondent where Complainant’s EUROPCAR mark is clearly being targeted in registration of the disputed domain name. Taking into consideration the international presence of Complainant’s mark and the nature of the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive

holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy.3

In the Panel’s view, the lack of response is also indicative that Respondent lacks arguments and evidence to support its holding of the disputed domain name.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds that 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 <europcar.fun> be transferred to Complainant.

/Gerardo Saavedra/
Gerardo Saavedra
Sole Panelist

Date: January 30, 2025

1See Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha (Casio Computer Co., Ltd.) v. Jongchan Kim, WIPO Case No. D2003-0400: “There is no

evidence that the Complainant authorized the Respondent to register the disputed domain name or to use the CASIO trademark, with or
without immaterial additions or variants. These circumstances are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing by the Complainant of
absence of rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name on the part of the Respondent”.

2See Intel Corporation v. The Pentium Group, WIPO Case No. D2009-0273: “incorporation of a well-known trademark into a domain

name by a registrant having no plausible explanation for doing so may be, in and of itself, an indication of bad faith”.
3See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. See also Ferrari S.p.A. v. Ms. Lee Joohee (or Joo-Hee), WIPO Case No. D2003-0882:

“Respondent has provided no evidence or suggestion of a possible legitimate use of the Domain Name. Thus, in the words of Telstra, it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the Domain Name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate”.