Groupama Supports et Services v Wu Yu

WIPO Case No. DCO2022-0105

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Caisse Nationale de Reassurance Mutuelle Agricole Groupama and
Groupama Supports et Services v. Wu Yu

Case No. DCO2022-0105

1. The Parties

The Complainants are Caisse Nationale de Reassurance Mutuelle Agricole Groupama, France and

Groupama Supports et Services, France, represented by Iteanu & Associes, France.

The Respondent is Wu Yu, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <groupamastadium.co> is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 25,

2022. On November 25, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainants to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainants filed an amendment to the Complaint on November 30, 2022.

verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 28, 2022, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The

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 paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 25, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any

response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 4, 2023.

page 2

The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on January 11, 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.

The Panel has not received any requests from the Complainants or the Respondent regarding further submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information from the Parties.

Having reviewed the communication records in the case file provided by the Center, the Panel finds that the

Center has discharged its responsibility under the Rules, paragraph 2(a), “to employ reasonably available

means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent”. Therefore, the Panel shall issue its Decision

based upon the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules, and the Supplemental Rules, and without the benefit of a
response from the Respondent.

The language of the proceeding is English, being the language of the Registration Agreement, as per paragraph 11(a) of the Rules.

4. Factual Background

The Complainants are Caisse Nationale de Reassurance Mutuelle Agricole Groupama and Groupama
Supports et Services, two French companies operating respectively in the finance and insurance fields and
as a support and services provider of the former. Caisse Nationale de Reassurance Mutuelle Agricole
Groupama owns several trademark registrations for GROUPAMA, among which the following:

- European Trade Mark Registration No. 001210863 for GROUPAMA, registered on June 27, 2000.

The Complainants also operate on the Internet, with several domain names incorporating the trademark
GROUPAMA, among which <groupama.com> and <groupama.fr>, owned by Caisse Nationale de
Reassurance Mutuelle Agricole Groupama, and <groupamastadium.com> and <groupama-stadium.com>

owned by Groupama Supports et Services, being “Groupama Stadium” the name of the French football team

Olympique Lyonnais’ stadium for sponsorship reasons.

The Complainants provided evidence in support of the above.

According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on June 27, 2022. The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with sponsored links, mainly in the insurance field, some of them

redirecting to the Complainants’ competitors.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainants

The Complainants state that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to their trademark

GROUPAMA, as it is composed by the trademark GROUPAMA with the addition of the descriptive word

“stadium”.

Moreover, the Complainants assert that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since it has not been authorized by the Complainants to register the disputed domain name or to use their trademark within the disputed domain name, it is not commonly known by the disputed

domain name and it is not making either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent, in the website at the disputed

page 3

domain name, has a parking page with sponsored links to the same fields of activity of the Complainant,

some of them redirecting to the Complainants’ competitors.

The Complainants submit that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, since it was registered with the only purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainants and

attracting Internet users for commercial gain by creating confusion with the Complainants’ trademark.

B. Respondent

The Respondent has made no reply to the Complainants’ contentions and is in default. In reference to

paragraphs 5(f) and 14 of the Rules, no exceptional circumstances explaining the default have been put

forward or are apparent from the record.

A respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding under the Policy, but if it fails to do so, reasonable
facts asserted by a complainant may be taken as true, and appropriate inferences, in accordance with
paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, may be drawn (see, e.g., Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc., WIPO Case
No. D2000-0441; Microsoft Corporation v. Freak Films Oy, WIPO Case No. D2003-0109; SSL International
PLC v. Mark Freeman, WIPO Case No. D2000-1080; Altavista Company v. Grandtotal Finances Limited et.
al., WIPO Case No. D2000-0848; Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, Caisse Fédérale du Crédit

Mutuel Nord Europe v. Marketing Total S.A., WIPO Case No. D2007-0288).

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainants must satisfy in order to succeed:

(i)        the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights; and

(ii)       the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii)      the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Consolidation of Multiple Complainants

The Complaint and the amendment to the Complaint were filed by two Complainants, and the Complainants
have requested consolidation of multiple complainants. No objection to this request was made by the

Respondent.

Pursuant to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition

(“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.1: “assessing whether a complaint filed by multiple complainants may

be brought against a single respondent, panels look at whether (i) the complainants have a specific common grievance against the respondent, or the respondent has engaged in common conduct that has affected the complainants in a similar fashion, and (ii) it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the

consolidation”.

The Panel finds that there is sufficient evidence that the Complainants have common grievance against the consolidation would be procedurally efficient and equitable. The Panel further notes that the Respondent did

not object to the consolidation request. The Panel therefore accepts the Complainants’ consolidation

request.

For the purpose of this decision, the “Complainant” will refer to both the Complainants.

page 4

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark GROUPAMA both by registration and acquired reputation and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark GROUPAMA.

Regarding the addition of the term “stadium”, the Panel notes that it is now well established that the addition

of terms or letters to a domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed
domain name and the trademark (see, e.g., Aventis Pharma SA., Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v.
Jonathan Valicenti, WIPO Case No. D2005-0037; Red Bull GmbH v. Chai Larbthanasub, WIPO Case No.

D2003-0709; America Online, Inc. v. Dolphin@Heart, WIPO Case No. D2000-0713). The addition of the

term “stadium” does not therefore prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the

Complainant’s trademark. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

It is well accepted that a ccTLD, in this case “.co”, is typically ignored when assessing the similarity between

a trademark and a domain name. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has therefore met its burden of proving that the disputed domain name

is identical to the Complainant’s trademark, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by demonstrating in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation:

“(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain

name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or

services; or

(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name,

even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial

gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of proving the three elements of

the Policy. However, satisfying the burden of proving a lack of the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests

in respect of the disputed domain name according to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is potentially quite production to the Respondent. If the Respondent fails to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or on any other basis, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

difficult, since proving a negative circumstance is generally more complicated than establishing a positive
one. As such, it is well accepted that it is sufficient for the Complainant to make a prima facie case that the
prima facie

The Complainant in its Complaint, and as set out above, has established a case that the Respondent, who is not currently associated with the Complainant in any way, is not using the disputed domain name for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use or in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The disputed domain name is used for a parking page with sponsored links to the same fields of

activity of the Complainant, some of them redirecting to the Complainants’ competitors.

page 5

The prima facie case presented by the Complainant is enough to shift the burden of production to the Respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not presented any evidence of any rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain name, and the Panel is unable to establish any such rights or legitimate interests on the basis of the evidence in front of it.

Moreover, the Panel finds that the composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that “[f]or the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the following

circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of
the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered or [has] acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable

consideration in excess of [its] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) [the respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark 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) [the respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a

competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain,

Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion

with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s]

web site or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] web site or location”.

Regarding the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name, the reputation of the Complainant’s

trademark GROUPAMA in the finance and insurance fields is clearly established and the Panel finds that the faith, especially because the content of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves consists of providing the same services as the Complainant.

The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is also used in bad faith since in the relevant website there are pay-per-click links, even in the case where they are automatically generated, mainly referring to insurance services, and the Respondent is therefore knowingly taking advantage from user confusion.

The above suggests to the Panel that the Respondent intentionally registered and is using the disputed domain name in order to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Moreover, the Panel considers that the nature of the disputed domain name further supports a finding of bad

faith, as it incorporates the Complainant’s trademark with the addition of the term “stadium”, therefore making

altogether the name of the French football team Olympique Lyonnais’ stadium, sponsored by a company

belonging to the Complainant’s Group. See, WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

page 6

The Panel finds that the Complainant has presented evidence to satisfy its burden of proof with respect to the issue of whether the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied.

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 <groupamastadium.co> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Edoardo Fano/

Edoardo Fano

Sole Panelist
Date: January 17, 2023