Sopra Steria Group v Liu Fen

WIPO Case No. DCO2023-0034

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Sopra Steria Group v. Liu Fen

Case No. DCO2023-0034

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Sopra Steria Group, France, represented by Herbert Smith Freehills Paris LLP, France.

The Respondent is Liu Fen, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <steriasopra.co> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 29, 2023.
On March 30, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On March 31, 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 (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint.
The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 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 filed an amended Complaint on April 7, 2023.

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 April 19, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 9, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 12, 2023.

The Center appointed Tuukka Airaksinen as the sole panelist in this matter on May 22, 2023. 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.

page 2

4. Factual Background

The Complainant was established in 2014 upon the merger of Sopra Group SA and Groupe Steria SCA, two companies that were founded in 1968 and 1969, respectively. It is engaging in consulting and information technology services. The Complainant owns the figurative trademark SOPRA STERIA, registered inter alia as a European Union Trade Mark No. 013623889 as of May 15, 2015. The Complainant also owns the trademarks SOPRA and STERIA separately, registered in several countries. The trademark SOPRA has been registered as a European Union Trade Mark No. 003233335 as of February 3, 2005 and the trademark STERIA has been registered as a French trademark No. 1563115 as of December 1, 1989.

The disputed domain name was registered on November 23, 2022 and resolves to a website offering the disputed domain name for sale for 1,450 USD.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The disputed domain name reproduces both of the Complainant’s trademarks SOPRA and STERIA and is a mere reversal of the Complainant’s trademark SOPRA STERIA.

The Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not granted any license to the Respondent nor has it authorized the Respondent to register the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, because the disputed domain name is offered for sale.

The disputed domain name resolves to a page offering the disputed domain name for sale for 1,450 USD, a value that is far superior to its actual registration costs.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

In order to obtain the transfer of a domain name, a complainant must prove the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, regardless of whether the respondent files a response to the complaint or not. The first element is that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. The second element a complainant must prove is that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. The third element a complainant must establish is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. Consequently, the Complainant must prove that it has rights to a trademark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to this trademark.

According to section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions,
Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), “[t]he applicable Top Level Domain (‘TLD’) in a domain name (e.g.,
‘.com’, ‘.club’, ‘.nyc’) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the
first element confusing similarity test”.

page 3

The disputed domain name consists of the combination of the Complainant’s two trademarks STERIA and SOPRA and of the figurative trademark SOPRA STERIA in reverse order. The Complainant’s trademarks are recognizable in the disputed domain name, and is therefore confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademarks. Hence, the first element of the Policy has been fulfilled.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name.

It is widely accepted among UDRP panels that once a complainant has made a prima facie showing indicating the absence of the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element of the Policy. See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0270, and section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

The Complainant has credibly submitted that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant in any way nor has it been authorized by the Complainant to use and register the disputed domain name, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has not made and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraphs 4(c)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy.

The disputed domain name is offered for sale for a sum obviously higher than its registration. This does not establish any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that has not been rebutted by the Respondent. Considering the Panel’s findings below, the Panel finds that there are no other circumstances that provide the Respondent with any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy is fulfilled.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

“(i) circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable

consideration in excess of [the respondent’s] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain

name; or

(ii) [the respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or
service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the respondent has]

engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) [the respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business or

competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, 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.”

page 4

Considering that the disputed domain name consists of nothing more than the Complainant’s trademarks, it is obvious that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademarks when registering the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name resolves to a website offering the disputed domain name for sale for 1,450 USD. This is most likely in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs of the registration of the disputed domain name and the Respondent has not contested this. The Respondent has therefore acquired the disputed domain name presumably for the purpose of selling the disputed domain name to the Complainant, who is the owner of the trademark or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs related to the disputed domain name.

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii).

Therefore, the Panel finds that the third element of the Policy is fulfilled.

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 <steriasopra.co> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Tuukka Airaksinen/
Tuukka Airaksinen
Sole Panelist
Date: June 5, 2023