Groupe Canal + v paul kolo, henrymax steel company

WIPO Case No. D2024-3603

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Groupe Canal + v. paul kolo, henrymax steel company

Case No. D2024-3603

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Groupe Canal +, France, represented by Nameshield, France.

The Respondent is paul kolo, henrymax steel company, France.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <studiocanals.com> is registered with GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Discount-

Domain.com and Onamae.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 5, the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on the same day.
2024. On September 6, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar
verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 9, 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) and contact

information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on

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 of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 24, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 14, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 19, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed William Lobelson as the sole panelist in this matter on October 24, 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 Groupe Canal +, a France-based audio-visual media group. It owns trademark rights in the name STUDIO CANAL, that corresponds to the corporate name of its subsidiary that produces and distributes movies and TV series on a European scale:

- French trademark STUDIO CANAL n° 3015704 of March 20, 2000;

- European Union trademark STUDIO CANAL n° 001866151 of October 30, 2002;

- International trademark STUDIOCANAL n° 1109020 of December 23, 2011.

The Complainant also owns numerous domain names including its trademark STUDIO CANAL including the domain name <studiocanal.com> registered in 2000.

The disputed domain name is <studiocanals.com>. It was registered on August 26, 2024 and directs to an error page. Mail Exchange (“MX”) servers have been set up, and the disputed domain name has been used as an email address ([…]@studiocanals.com) to send messages to the Complainant’s customers to solicit payment by impersonating the Complainant.

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.

Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its earlier trademarks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Notwithstanding the default of the Respondent, it remains incumbent on the Complainant to make out its case in all respects set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. Namely, the Complainant must prove that:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the

Complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i));

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

4(a)(ii)); and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii)).

page 3

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.

The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. The sole addition of the final letter “s” to the Complainant’s mark STUDIO CANAL in the disputed domain name constitutes a misspelling of the Complainant’s mark, which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.7 and 1.9.

The Panel finds 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.

(i) before any notice of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the
disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide

offering of goods and services;

(ii) the Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the

disputed domain name, even if the Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without
intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at
issue.

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 the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, particularly by asserting that the Respondent is not affiliated with it in any way and that it has never authorized the Respondent to use its trademark as part of the disputed domain name.

The Respondent has not rebutted the 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.

The Complainant further contends that the Respondent does not make any bona fide use nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

page 4

In addition, the disputed domain name is used in connection with a fraudulent email scheme that impersonates the Complainant.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal or illegitimate activity such as sale of counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

The Panel finds 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.

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 record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitute bad faith under the Policy.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant, which is a clear indication that the Respondent knew about the Complainant and sought to take a financial advantage through such fraudulent activities.

For this Panel, the above is a clear indication that the Respondent necessarily had the Complainant’s trademark in mind when it registered the disputed domain name.

Further, the information provided to the Panel in support of the Complainant’s contentions shows that the and phishing purposes.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal or illegitimate activity (sale of counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4.

The disputed domain name currently directs to an error page does not alter the finding that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Panel finds that the 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 <studiocanals.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/William Lobelson/
William Lobelson
Sole Panelist
Date: October 30, 2024