About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Europcar International S.A.S.U. v. Michael / Michael Brown

Case No. D2016-0222

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Europcar International S.A.S.U. of Voisins-le-Bretonneux, France represented by Taylor Wessing LLP, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("United Kingdom").

The Respondent is Michael / Michael Brown of Fairfield, New Jersey, United States of America ("United States").

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <europcar.help> is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on February 5, 2016. On February 5, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 7, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that 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 February 10, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 1, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on March 4, 2016. On March 8, 2016, the Center re-notified the Respondent of the Complaint. The due date for Response was March 28, 2016. The Respondent did not submit a response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on March 29, 2016.

The Center appointed Mario Soerensen Garcia as the sole panelist in this matter on April 6, 2016. 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is the car rental company Europcar International S.A.S.U., with its head offices in Voisins-le-Bretonneux, France. The Europcar Group operates and offers services in over 140 countries and started using the brand EUROPCAR in France in 1949.

The Complainant owns the US registrations Nos. 1066416, for EUROPCAR, granted on May 24, 1977, being in use in commerce since 1958, and 2804097, for EUROPCAR & design, granted on January 13, 2004, and the Community Trademark registration Nos. 3993789, for EUROPCAR, granted on August 4, 2006, and 4016002, for EUROPCAR & design, granted on December 21, 2005, all of them protecting transportation services and services of rental of vehicles, among other services, in class 39.

The Complainant is the owner of the domain name <europcar.com>, registered on March 23, 1997.

The disputed domain name was registered on May 23, 2015.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant stresses that the only distinctive element of the disputed domain name is identical to the mark EUROPCAR and therefore there would be a high likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trademark. It cites Research in Motion Limited v. One Star Global LLC, WIPO Case No. D2009-0227 to defend that the incorporation of the entirety of a trademark in a domain name makes it confusingly similar to the trademark for the purposes of the Policy.

The Complainant argues that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, but redirecting users to a holding page.

According to the Complainant, the Respondent is not known by the name "Europcar" on the Internet and does not own any trademark comprising the word "Europcar".

Thus, there would be a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and it would shift the burden to prove otherwise to the Respondent. The Complainant cites Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltda., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455 to corroborate the argument that the Respondent should prove its rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name in this case.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has been acting in bad faith by using the disputed domain name to redirect users to a holding page advertising the disputed domain name for sale, displaying the message "make ofer from 2.000 USD". It cites the Intel Corporation v. The Pentium Group, WIPO Case No. D2009-0273 stating that the mere parking of a domain name may constitute bad faith. The fact that the domain is parked associated with the offer of the disputed domain name for sale would be a serious indication of bad faith.

Moreover, the Complainant presents in Annex 10 an email from the Respondent replying to contact made by the Complainant about the disputed domain name. In said email, the Respondent says that he is willing to sell the disputed domain name for USD 5,000 and that he had already sold other domain names bearing car rental companies' trademarks. This email would be evidence that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name only to sell it to the Complainant later.

The Complainant stresses that it owns two registrations for EUROPCAR trademarks in the United States, where the Respondent is resident, one of which was granted in 1977. Besides, there would be Europcar Stations in nearly 20 States in the United States.

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was registered after the registration of the Complainant's trademarks and long after the trademark EUROPCAR was first used.

According to the Complainant, the Respondent is not authorized to register and keep the disputed domain name and the Complainant has no control over the use of the disputed domain name.

Finally, the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

As per paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:

(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 respect of the disputed domain name; and

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

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The evidence presented demonstrates that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark EUROPCAR (word mark and word & design mark) in the United States and in European countries in class 39, to cover transportation services and rental of vehicles services, among other services, and of the domain name <europcar.com>.

The Complainant's trademarks and domain name <europcar.com> predate the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name comprises the Complainant's trademark EUROPCAR.

Apart from the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".help", the only element of the disputed domain name is EUROPCAR, which is identical to the Complainant's trademark.

The Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been proved by the Complainant, i.e., the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent has not submitted a response to the Complaint.

There is no evidence that the Respondent has any authorization to use the Complainant's trademark or to register domain names containing the trademark EUROPCAR.

There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.

There is no evidence that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name or that before any notice of the dispute the Respondent has made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain name, which corresponds to the Complainant's trademark, with the intent to sell it, associated with the offer from the Respondent to the Complainant, by email to sell it for USD 5,000 (Annex 10 to the Complaint) does not correspond to a bona fide use of domain names under the Policy.

For the above reasons, the Complainant has made an unrebutted prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The trademark EUROPCAR is registered by the Complainant in the United States, where the Respondent is located, besides other countries.

The disputed domain name is comprised only by the trademark EUROPCAR, with no additional word.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The website at the disputed domain name offers it for sale.

In Annex 10 to the Complaint there is an email of the Respondent to the Complainant in which the Respondent offers the disputed domain name for USD 5,000 and mentions that it sold other ".help" domain names bearing the trademarks of famous car companies.

In view of the above reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the costs directly related to the domain name, as described in the Policy paragraph 4(b)(i).

The Panel finds that the Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name, with the intention of selling it to the Complainant or a competitor of the Complainant, have been demonstrated.

For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied, i.e., the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

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 <europcar.help> be transferred to the Complainant.

Mario Soerensen Garcia
Sole Panelist
Date: April 20, 2016

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/