Havas Media France v Victor lloris, Organization Redacted

WIPO Case No. D2024-0986

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Havas Media France v. Victor lloris, Organization Redacted

Case No. D2024-0986

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Havas Media France, France, represented internally.

The Respondent is Victor lloris, Organization Redacted, France. [1]

[1]The Panel has decided to redact the name of the Respondent’s Organization, adopting the criterion of the panel in Banco Bradesco

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <havasmedia-france.com> is registered with Combell NV (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in French with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 5, 2024. On March 6, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 7, 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 March 7, 2024, 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 on March 10, 2024.

On March 7, 2024, the Center informed the parties, in French and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is English. On March 10, 2024, the Complainant submitted the Complaint translated into English.

page 2

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 March 12, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was April 1, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly,

the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 2, 2024.

The Center appointed Vincent Denoyelle as the sole panelist in this matter on April 8, 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 following facts are based on the submissions in the Complaint and the Annexes to the Complaint.

The Complainant is a French multinational media group.

The Complainant is the owner of the following trade mark registration in the term HAVAS MEDIA:

- European Union Trade Mark HAVAS MEDIA No. 005537717, registered on November 19, 2007.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name using the corporate identity of the Complainant.

The disputed domain name was registered on October 15, 2023, and currently does not point to an active website, however, according to the evidence provided in the Complaint, it was used to create email addresses and facilitate fraudulent activities 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 domain name as the disputed domain name is used to facilitate fraudulent activities and impersonate the Complainant. For the same reasons the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is

confusingly similar to the name of Havas Media France (which includes the HAVAS MEDIA trade mark). The

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

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

page 3

the Complainant’s trade mark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The Panel finds the entirety of the HAVAS MEDIA trade mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the HAVAS MEDIA trade mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

While the addition of another term here, “-france”, may bear on assessment of the second and third
elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between
the disputed domain name and the HAVAS MEDIA trade mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. Based on the available record, 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.

While 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 often impossible 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 disputed domain name. 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 record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the 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 use of the disputed domain name to fraudulently impersonate the Complainant cannot qualify as either use of the disputed domain name (or demonstrable plans for such use) with a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial fair use. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., phishing, 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. Based on the available record, 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.

The disputed domain name reproduces the entire HAVAS MEDIA trade mark of the Complainant and this cannot be a coincidence given the overall circumstances of the present case including: (i) the reputation of the Complainant’s HAVAS MEDIA trade mark, (ii) the fact that the disputed domain name was registered relatively recently and many years after the registration of the trade mark HAVAS MEDIA, (iii) the choice of the term “-france” added after the HAVAS MEDIA trade mark in the disputed domain name, and (iv) the use by the Respondent of the corporate identity of the Complainant to register the disputed domain name.

page 4

As for use of the disputed domain name, the act of sending emails impersonating the Complainant in order to 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 the Respondent’s website or location.

defraud suppliers of the Complainant is very persuasive and clear evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith
use of the disputed domain name and typically the type of use the Policy is designed to tackle. On this
basis, the Panel finds that, as per paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, by using the disputed domain name, the

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., phishing, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4.

Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy and the third element of the Policy has thus been established.

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 <havasmedia-france.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Vincent Denoyelle/
Vincent Denoyelle
Sole Panelist
Date: April 22, 2024

S.A v. FAST-12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788. The Panel has decided that no
purpose can be served by including the Respondent’s Organization in this decision, and has therefore redacted the organization name
from the caption and body of this decision. The Panel has, however, attached as Annex 1 to this Decision an instruction to the Registrar
regarding transfer of the disputed domain names that includes the Respondent’s Organization name, and has authorized the Center to
transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding. However, the Panel has further directed the Center, pursuant
to paragraph 4(j) of the Policy and paragraph 16(b) of the Rules, that Annex 1 to this Decision shall not be published except under
exceptional circumstances.