Europcar Mobility Group SA v SKY PENG

WIPO Case No. D2024-5120

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Europcar Mobility Group SA v. SKY PENG,
Feizhong Media Network Co., Ltd.

Case No. D2024-5120

1. The Parties

Complainant is Europcar Mobility Group SA, France, represented by Taylor Wessing LLP, United Kingdom

(“UK”).

Respondent is SKY PENG, Feizhong Media Network Co., Ltd., China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <keddy.live> is registered with Name.com, Inc. (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 (Feizhong Media Network Co., Ltd.) and contact information in the Complaint. 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 amended Complaints on December 17 and 23, 2024.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaints 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 24, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 13, 2025. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on January 16, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Scott R. Austin as the sole panelist in this matter on January 27, 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

The following facts appear from the Complaint (as amended) and its attached Annexes, which have not been contested by Respondent, and provides evidence sufficient to support:

Complainant is part of the Europcar group of companies has operated under its current company name since
2018, and a division of Complainant provides car rental and mobility services under the trademark KEDDY
(the “KEDDY Mark”) across a network of 170 countries worldwide with approximately 200 airport locations in
Europe and 600 around the world.

Complainant owns 125 trademark registrations for the KEDDY Mark in the UK and many jurisdictions throughout the world, including the following:

1.        European Union Registration No. 005386545, KEDDY, registered August 28, 2007, for a range of

automobile rental, leasing and financing services in International Classes 35, 36 and 39;

2. UK Registration No. UK00905386545, KEDDY, registered August 28, 2007, for a range of automobile rental, leasing and financing services in International Classes 35, 36 and 39; and

3. International Trademark Registration No. 1261690, KEDDY, registered February 25, 2015, for a range

of automobile related goods and rental, leasing, financing and transport services in International Classes 12,
35, 36 and 39, designating 27 jurisdictions worldwide, including Australia, India, Egypt and Russian
Federation.

The disputed domain name was created on October 17, 2024, and does not resolve to a functional website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name: that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s KEDDY Mark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

There are no exceptional circumstances within paragraph 5(e) of the Rules to prevent this Panel from determining the present dispute based upon the Complaint (as amended), notwithstanding the failure of any person to lodge a substantive formal Response in compliance with the Rules. Under paragraph 14 of the Rules, where a party does not comply with any provision of the Rules, the Panel shall “draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate”.

page 3

Where no substantive Response is filed, however, Complainant must still make out its case in all respects under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. To succeed, Complainant must demonstrate that the requirements for each of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied.

The Panel will address its findings on each of these elements in more detail below.

The standard of proof under the Policy is often expressed as the “balance of the probabilities” or
“preponderance of the evidence” standard. Under this standard, an asserting party needs to establish that it
is more likely than not that the claimed fact is true. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected

UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.2.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite
rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.
Complainant has demonstrated its rights because it has shown that it is the holder of multiple valid and
subsisting trademark registrations for the KEDDY Mark. See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., Les
Publications Conde Nast S.A. v. Voguechen, WIPO Case No. D2014-0657.

With Complainant’s rights in the KEDDY Mark established, the remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s KEDDY Mark.

Prior UDRP panels have held that the incorporation of the entirety of a trademark in a domain name is
sufficient to establish identity or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0,
sections 1.7 and 1.8 (“Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the
addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not
prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element”); see also United Talent Agency, LLC v.
Lianxin Zhou, WIPO Case No. D2024-1160; and Carrefour SA v. yuri eros, מ"עב ןתיב תוניי , WIPO Case
No. D2022-1277.

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s KEDDY Mark in its entirety and is identical because it adds nothing other than the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.live”. The addition of the gTLD “.live” is irrelevant in determining whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar. See, Research in Motion Limited v. Thamer Ahmed Alfarshooti, WIPO Case No. D2012-1146; WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the second element of the Policy, a complainant is first required to make out a prima facie case that
the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If a complainant makes that
showing, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant
evidence of such rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward
with such evidence, a complainant is generally deemed to have satisfied the second element.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. See also, Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth
International, WIPO Case No. D2008-1393.

Based on the record, Complainant has established, prima facie, that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. First, Complainant asserts that it has not licensed, or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the KEDDY Mark in any manner, nor is Complainant in any way or manner associated with or related to Respondent. Complainant has also claimed with persuasive evidence submitted that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name because Respondent, “SKY PENG, Feizhong Media Network Co., Ltd.”, clearly bears no resemblance to the term “keddy”, the

page 4

KEDDY Mark, or the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name for purposes of the Policy.

Complainant also shows that Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services because it does not resolve to a functional website and remains inactive, so it is therefore not offering any goods or services. Prior UDRP panels have held that the inactive status of a disputed domain name does not comprise a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy. See Accenture Global Services Limited v. Marc Diks, WIPO Case No. D2021-1383.

The Panel finds Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of
goods or services, so as to confer rights or legitimate interests in it in accordance with paragraph 4(c)(i) of
the Policy and that the composition of the disputed domain name being identical to Complainant’s mark
fosters an implied affiliation with Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

These facts establish Complainant’s prima facie showing. Respondent has not provided any basis on which that showing may be overcome. Complainant has successfully met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. See, e.g., Hallmark Licensing, LLC v. EWebMall, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2015-2202.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that point to bad faith conduct on the part of a respondent. The panel may, however, consider the totality of the circumstances when analyzing bad faith under Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii) and may make a finding of bad faith that is not limited to the

enumerated factors in Policy, paragraph 4(b). See Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No.
D2000-0624.

First, Complainant contends, and this Panel has found in Section 6B above from the record submitted and its own independent investigation as permitted under the Policy, that the KEDDY Mark is located, and widely known around the world. Based on the uncontested record, considering that the KEDDY Mark is registered recognized and advertised at car hire facilities around the world, its trademark registration predates by over sixteen years Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name incorporates the KEDDY Mark in its entirety, Respondent has no credible argument that he is unaware of the KEDDY Mark. See, e.g., Alstom v. Domain Investments LLC, WIPO Case No. D2008-0287; see also Accor S.A. v. Kristen Hoerl, WIPO Case No. D2007-1722.

A consensus of prior UDRP panels have found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4.

Prior UDRP panels have also found that where, as here, it would be implausible to believe that Respondent
selected and was using the disputed domain name for any other purpose than to trade on Complainant’s
trademark rights and reputation, it establishes a fact pattern that repeatedly has been held to constitute bad
faith registration. See Houghton Mifflin Co. v. Weathermen, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0211; see also
Philip Morris Incorporated v. Alex Tsypkin, WIPO Case No. D2002-0946. The Panel finds, therefore, that
Respondent had actual knowledge of the KEDDY Mark and that Respondent has targeted Complainant’s
KEDDY Mark in registering the disputed domain name in bad faith. See Tudor Games, Inc. v. Domain
Hostmaster, Customer ID No. 09382953107339 dba Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd / Domain Administrator,
Vertical Axis Inc., WIPO Case No. D2014-1754.

page 5

Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. Having reviewed the record, which shows the disputed domain name resolves to a page with the words “The destination keddy.live is not reachable”, the Panel finds the non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith in the circumstances of this proceeding. While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that that are present here which have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of Complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) Respondent 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 disputed domain name may be put. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. See “Dr. Martens” International Trading GmbH and “Dr. Maertens” Marketing GmbH v. Godaddy.com, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2017-0246.

Having reviewed the record, the Panel notes as it did in 6B above, Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has never resolved to an active page, as it has remained inactive since its registration. Prior UDRP panels have found under the doctrine of passive holding that that the word bad faith “use” in the context of paragraph 4(a)(iii) does not require a positive act on the part of respondent – instead, passively holding a domain name can constitute a factor in finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; see also Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v. Colour Digital, WIPO Case No. D2000-1260.

Given Complainant’s substantial multinational presence and awards for its recognition by consumers, the record reflects that Complainant’s KEDDY Mark has developed a strong reputation and is widely known, as evidenced by its use in a number of countries around the world with substantial media recognition for over 16 years before the registration of the disputed domain name. Moreover, the composition of the disputed domain name encompasses the KEDDY Mark in its entirety. The Panel finds, therefore, 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. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, supra.

The Panel finds Complainant’s arguments and evidence persuasive and has received no arguments or evidence from Respondent to the contrary. Considering all the circumstances, the Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith and Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 <keddy.live> be transferred to Complainant.

/Scott R. Austin/
Scott R. Austin
Sole Panelist
Date: February 14, 2025