SEB S.A. v yangyang, yangyang

WIPO Case No. D2024-0805

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

SEB S.A. v. yangyang, yangyang

Case No. D2024-0805

1. The Parties

The Complainant is SEB S.A., France, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is yangyang, yangyang, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <groupesebfrance.com> is registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was f iled with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 22, 2024. On February 22, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 23, 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 (WhoisSecure) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 26, 2024, 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 February 27, 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 proceeding commenced on February 29, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 20, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response.

Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s default on March 21, 2024.

The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on April 3, 2024. The Panel f inds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and

page 2

Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the

Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background
A. Complainant

The Complainant is a French holding company for the Groupe SEB group of companies, founded in 1857. The Complainant and its group of companies manufactures, markets and sells a wide range of branded domestic appliances in countries worldwide. The Complainant is the owner of registrations in jurisdictions worldwide for its GROUPE SEB trade mark (the “Trade Mark”), including French registration No. 3374966, with a registration date of January 13, 2006; and International registration No. 894757, with a registration date of January 26, 2006.

The Complainant has owned and used the domain name <groupeseb.com> comprising the Trade Mark since May 1, 1996.

B. Respondent

The Respondent is apparently an individual resident in China.

C. The Disputed Domain Name

The disputed domain name was registered on July 31, 2023.

D. Use of the Disputed Domain Name

The disputed domain is resolved to a Chinese language website with pornographic and gambling related content and links (the “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, in light of the repute of the Trade Mark, the Respondent’s use of the Website to provide pornographic and gambling related content and links does not give rise to any rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent, and amounts to bad faith registration and use.

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 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

page 3

the Complainant’s Trade Mark 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 Trade Mark is reproduced 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.

Although the addition of other terms (here, “f rance”) 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 Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

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.

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 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 (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.

The Respondent has failed to show that he has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a bona f ide of fering of goods or services. To the contrary, the disputed domain name is resolved, for commercial gain, to the Website, containing pornographic and gambling related content and links.

Furthermore, the Panel f inds that the disputed domain name, combining the Trade Mark and the geographical term “France”, a country in which the Complainant is incorporated, carries a risk of implied af f iliation with the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

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.

page 4

In light of the manner of the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name referred to above, the Panel f inds, in all the circumstances, that the requisite element of bad faith has been made out pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

The Panel f inds 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 <groupesebfrance.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Sebastian M.W. Hughes/
Sebastian M.W. Hughes
Sole Panelist
Date: April 17, 2024