Les Studios Moment Factory v Antonio Lopez, DHL Logistics

WIPO Case No. D2023-4780

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Les Studios Moment Factory v. Antonio Lopez, DHL Logistics

Case No. D2023-4780

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Les Studios Moment Factory, Canada, represented by St. Lawrence Law Firm LLP,

Canada.

The Respondent is Antonio Lopez, DHL Logistics, United States of America (“U.S.”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <moment-factory.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with

NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 16, 2023. On November 20, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. Also on November 20, 2023, 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 (Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint.

The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 21, 2023 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 amendment to the Complaint on November 24, 2023.

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 Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 28, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 18, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any

page 2

response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 21, 2023. 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 a company registered in Canada which operates an international multimedia business
active in jurisdictions including Canada, U.S., China, Japan, Hong Kong, China, Republic of Korea,
Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, France, United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Complainant
holds registrations for the trademark MOMENT FACTORY, and variations of it, in several countries, including
Canada trademark registration No. TMA674225, registered on October 5, 2006.

The Complainant is also the owner of, inter alia, the domain name <momentfactory.com> which resolves to the company’s main website.

The Disputed Domain Name <moment-factory.com> was registered on February 21, 2023. The record shows that the Disputed Domain Name has been resolving to a blank site. The Complainant has supplied uncontested evidence that the Disputed Domain Name is connected to a fraudulent phishing scheme that uses an email address: “[…]@moment-factory.com”, to create the impression of an association with the Complainant, in an attempt to fraudulently obtain personal details from targeted recipients of the emails.

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 cites its trademark registrations of the trademark MOMENT FACTORY in various countries as prima facie evidence of ownership.

The Complainant contends that its rights in the mark MOMENT FACTORY predate the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name. It submits that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademark, because the Disputed Domain Name incorporates in its entirety the MOMENT FACTORY trademark and infers that the similarity is not removed by the addition of the hyphen, and the generic Top- Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the illegitimate use it has made of the [Disputed] Domain Name until now”.
Disputed Domain Name because it is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, the Disputed

Domain Name is being used to perpetrate a phishing scam, and because it has no other web presence. The

Finally, the Complainant alleges that the registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name was, and name”.

currently is, in bad faith, contrary to the Policy and Rules having regard to the widespread prior use of the
Complainant’s trademark, and that given it was being used “by the Registrant to illegally impersonate

page 3

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of proving the following:

(i) that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and

(iii) that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

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.

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 finds the entirety of the mark is reproduced within the Disputed Domain Name, with a hyphen added between the terms “Moment” and “Factory”. Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Although the addition of a hyphen may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel
finds the addition of a hyphen does not prevent a finding 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 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.

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 Disputed 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 Disputed 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. 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.

page 4

Panels have held that the use of a Disputed Domain Name for illegal activity here, alleged phishing, which 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.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent registered and has used the Disputed 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.

On the issue of registration, given the composition of the Disputed Domain Name, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s trademark MOMENT FACTORY when it registered the Disputed Domain Name and the Panel is prepared to infer that the Respondent knew, or should have known, that its

registration would be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark (see
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2).

On the issue of use, the uncontradicted evidence of record is that the Disputed Domain Name was used to send emails bearing the Complainant’s trademark supposedly offering the recipient employment and seeking personal information from the target.

Panels have held that the use of a Disputed Domain Name for illegal activity here, alleged phishing where the respondent has been using the Disputed Domain Name to impersonate the Complainant with a view to fraudulently obtain private information from Internet users, 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.

Based on the available record, 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 <moment-factory.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Nicholas Weston/
Nicholas Weston
Sole Panelist
Date: January 5, 2024