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

Immochan v. Milen Radumilo

Case No. D2017-0113

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Immochan of Croix, France, represented by Dreyfus & Associés, France.

The Respondent is Milen Radumilo of Bucharest, Romania.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <immochanwifi.com> (the "Domain Name") is registered with Tucows Inc. (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on January 20, 2017. On January 20, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On the same day, 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 January 31, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 20, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on February 21, 2017.

The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on March 3, 2017. 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 a real estate subsidiary of the Auchan Group since 1976. It is specialized in shop-oriented urban planning. With nearly 400 shopping centers managed in 12 countries across Europe and Asia, the Complainant is one of the leading European commercial real estate companies for shopping centers. The Complainant began its activity in Romania 2012. It has today around 24 shopping centers in Romania.

The Complainant owns several trademarks, such as International trademark IMMOCHAN No. 714684, designating Romania, dated May 10, 1999 (renewed), International trademark IMMOCHAN No. 770710, designating Romania, dated of October 17, 2001 (renewed), and International trademark No. 1138072, designating Romania, dated of October 2, 2012.

In addition, the Complainant operates domain names such as <immochan.com> and <immochan.ro>.

The Domain Name was registered by the Respondent on October 31, 2016.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant provides trademark registrations, and submits that the IMMOCHAN trademark is wellknown. The Complainant argues that the Domain Name entirely reproduces the Complainant's trademark and trade name with the addition of the generic term "wifi". This addition is insufficient to avoid likelihood of confusion.

The Complainant argues further that the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way, or licensed or otherwise authorized to use the IMMOCHAN mark. The Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services. The registration of the IMMOCHAN trademarks preceded the registration of the Domain Name. The Respondent's website at Domain Name directs Internet users to a parking page that is aimed at generating revenues. The Complainant believes the Respondent may have registered the Domain Name to sell it.

As to bad faith, the Complainant argues that it is implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant when he registered the Domain Name. The Respondent's offer to sell the Domain Name on the Sedo page is a clear indication that he was aware of the Complainant's trademark when he registered the Domain Name. It is also evidence of bad faith use. According to the Complainant, the fact that the Respondent has registered more than 100,000 domain names, and he has already been involved in many UDRP proceedings where bad faith was found, points in the same direction. Furthermore, the Respondent has not responded to the Complainant's protest letter, nor the Complaint.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark IMMOCHAN.

The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name consists of the Complainant's trademark IMMOCHAN, with the suffix "wifi". This addition to the trademark does not dispel any confusing similarity.

For the purposes of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com".

The Panel finds 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.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register a domain name containing its trademark or otherwise make use of its mark.

Based on the evidence, the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way, and the Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent is not generally known by the Domain Name, and has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights in that name or mark.

Taking into account that the Respondent makes unauthorized use of the Complainant's trademark, and the Domain Name directs Internet users to a parking page which is aimed at generating revenues, and that the Respondent has put the Domain Name for sale, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted prima facie case. Accordingly, the Panel finds 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 finds that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant's trademark and its business when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. It is likely that the Respondent's intention for registering the Domain Name has been to use it for financial gain, evidenced by the fact that the Domain Name directs Internet users to a parking page which is aimed at generating revenues, and that the Respondent has put the Domain Name for sale. This is also evidence of bad faith use.

The Panel finds that on the balance of probabilities the Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name for commercial gain. This finding is supported by the fact that the Respondent has already been involved in many UDRP proceedings where bad faith was found, and the fact that the Respondent has not responded to the Complainant's allegations.

For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of the paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 Domain Name <immochanwifi.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: March 7, 2017

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/