Holding Benjamin et Edmond de Rothschild, Pregny Société Anonyme v; Cuba Dean

WIPO Case No. D2023-3329

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Holding Benjamin et Edmond de Rothschild, Pregny Société Anonyme v.
Cuba Dean

Case No. D2023-3329

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Holding Benjamin et Edmond de Rothschild, Pregny Société Anonyme, Switzerland, represented by OX Avocats, France.

The Respondent is Cuba Dean, South Africa.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <edmondderothschildbk.com> is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB

(the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 3, 2023. On August 3, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 4, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Privacy Protect, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 4, 2023 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amended Complaint on August 7, 2023.

The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied 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 notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 14, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 3, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s default on September 4, 2023.

page 2

The Center appointed Marilena Comanescu as the sole panelist in this matter on September 8, 2023. The Panel f inds 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 a member of the Edmond de Rothschild Group, a recognized market leader in the f inancial world that provides services on a worldwide basis. Edmond de Rothschild is a member of the famous Rothschild dynasty with a family tradition in banking, which has resulted in the creation, f inancing and running of numerous companies in the banking and asset management f ields around the world.

Edmond de Rothschild created in 1953, “CAMPAGNE FINANCIERE”, an investment company which
become an international banking group under the name “LCF ROTHSCHILD”, currently renamed “EDMOND

DE ROTHSCHILD”.

The Complainant owns trademark registrations for EDMOND DE ROTHSCHILD, such as the following;

- the International Trademark registration number 1046701, for the words EDMOND DE ROTHSCHILD, registered on June 21, 2010, designating, inter alia, the United States of America, Japan, China, Australia, Türkiye, Ukraine, Viet Nam, the European Union and covering services in Nice classes 35, 36, 38, 41; and

- the French Trademark registration number 093701735, for the words EDMOND DE ROTHSCHILD, filed on December 29, 2009, renewed on August 1, 2019 and covering services in Nice classes 35, 36, 38 and 41.

The Complainant’s of f icial website is available at “

The disputed domain name, <edmondderothschildbk.com>, was registered on January 30, 2023, and at the time of f iling the Complaint, it did not resolve to an active website.

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 trademark because it is formed of the well-known mark with the additional letters “bk”, the shorten form of the word “bank”, a term related to the Complainant’s activity; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith particularly, due to the Complainant’s substantial goodwill and reputation in the names containing EDMOND DE ROTHSCHILD, as well as the potential risk associated with the use of the email corresponding to the disputed domain name, for phishing emails or for other potential f raudulent purposes.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

In view of the absence of a Response, the discussion and findings will be based upon the contentions in the Complaint and any reasonable position that can be attributable to the Respondent. Under paragraph 4(a) of

page 3

the Policy, a complainant can only succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy if the following
circumstances are met:

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

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

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

The Panel will further analyze the potential concurrence of the above circumstances.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the f irst 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.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds 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 Panel f inds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

While the addition of other term/letters here, “bk”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

Based on the available record, the Panel f inds the f irst 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 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 Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in 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 composition of the disputed domain name, in this case being the reproductions of the Complainant’s highly distinctive trademark together with an acronym closely related to its industry, carries a risk of implied af f iliation. Prior UDRP panels have held that where a domain name consists of a trademark plus and additional term, such composition cannot constitute fair use if it ef fectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. See section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

page 4

Based on the available record, the Panel f inds 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.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, with knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark particularly because it incorporates the Complainant’s highly distinctive trademark registered since at least 2009, together with terms directly related to the Complainant’s business, i.e. “bk”, the shorten form of the Complainant’s business, banking.

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.

At the time of f iling the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to an inactive page.

UDRP 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, the Panel f inds the non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a f inding of bad faith in the circumstances of this proceeding. While UDRP panels will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s

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 domain name may be put. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3.

The Panel notes the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark in its f ield; the composition of the disputed domain name; the Respondent’s failure to provide a response in this procedure; the Respondent’s use of a privacy service and provision of inaccurate contact details in the WhoIs, and finds that, in the circumstances of this case, the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a f inding of bad faith under the Policy.

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

Based on the available record, the Panel f inds the third element of the Policy has 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, <edmondderothschildbk.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

/Marilena Comanescu/
Marilena Comanescu
Sole Panelist
Date: October 3, 2023