Nhood Holding v Milton Rottman

WIPO Case No. D2024-1851

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Nhood Holding v. Milton Rottman

Case No. D2024-1851

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Nhood Holding, France, represented by Deprez Guignot & Associés, France.

The Respondent is Milton Rottman, Spain.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <nhoodholding.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Dynadot Inc (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 2, 2024. On May 2, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On May 3, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed f rom the named Respondent (unkown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 3, 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 May 7, 2024.

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 May 8, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 28, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s default on May 29, 2024.

The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on June 10, 2024. 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 to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

page 2

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a is a multinational company in the real estate and retail sectors. It specializes in the development, management, and revitalization of commercial properties, including shopping centers, mixed- use complexes, and leisure destinations. Furthermore, as a holding company, the Complainant provides strategic direction, f inancial oversight and operational support to its subsidiaries.

The Complainant owns trademarks registrations including the word “nhood” across the world, such as International trademark number 1633616 (registered on June 14, 2021) and French trademark number 4657951 (registered on June 17, 2020).

The Domain Name was registered on May 22, 2023. The Domain Name has resolved to a webpage that features at the foot of the page an of fer to sell the Domain Name for USD 9,999.

5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant

The Complainant argues that the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark NHOOD and its commercial name NHOODHOLDING. It is cybersquatting.

The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name is not bona fide. The Respondent copies identically the Complainant’s corporate name without authorization.

The Complainant argues that the Respondent clearly registered the Domain Name with the intention to sell it to the highest bidder by copying the Complainant’s corporate name and trademarks. The Respondent was aware of the existence of the Complainant. The use of the Domain Name is obviously in bad faith. The Respondent’s use of a privacy service to hide its true identity is additional evidence of bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

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 Domain Name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark NHOOD. The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark with the addition of “holding”. The addition does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the trademark. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. When assessing identity or confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel may ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”). WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.

The Panel f inds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

page 3

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which a 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 of ten 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 satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

Based on the evidence, the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired trademark rights. There is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona f ide of fering of goods or services. Finally, the Panel finds that the composition of the Domain Name carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant.

The Panel f inds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

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 Respondent most likely knew of the Complainant when he registered the Domain Name. It follows f rom the composition of the Domain Name. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name indicates that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant or a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name. Moreover, the Respondent has not offered any explanation as to why it registered the Domain Name, nor provided any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use of the Domain Name. Finally, the Respondent’s use of a privacy service is under the circumstances of this case additional

evidence of bad faith.

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 the Domain Name <nhoodholding.com> transferred to the Complainant.

/Mathias Lilleengen/
Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: June 21, 2024