WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Uniglobe Travel International Limited Partnership v. Gerhard W Lenzen, Greenberg Traurig Germany
Case No. D2017-0466
1. The Parties
Complainant is Uniglobe Travel International Limited Partnership of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, represented by Gowlings WLG (Canada) LLP, Canada.
Respondent is Gerhard W Lenzen, Greenberg Traurig Germany of Berlin, Germany.1
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <uniglobetravel.agency> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 7, 2017. On March 7, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 8, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 30, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 19, 2017. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on April 20, 2017.
On April 28, 2017, the Center received a letter by post that appears to have been sent by Greenberg Traurig Germany, LLP.
The Center appointed Georges Nahitchevansky as the sole panelist in this matter on May 4, 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
Complainant, Uniglobe Travel International Limited Partnership, is a Canadian Limited Partnership whose sole general partner is Uniglobe Travel Inc. Complainant’s primary business is related to the franchising, establishment, development and operation of travel agencies throughout, Canada, the United States of America (United States), in Europe, and other countries worldwide. Complainant was founded in 1981 and today its travel management companies and global partners serve small to medium sized corporate accounts and vacation travelers in more than 60 countries. Complainant is the owner of many trademark registrations for the mark UNIGLOBE in several jurisdictions around the world, including, of relevance to this matter, Canada, the European Union and Germany (for example, European Union Trade Mark No. 8375, registered on October 17, 1997). Complainant also owns the domain names <uniglobe.com> and <uniglobetravel.com>, which it uses to provide information regarding Complainant’s businesses under the UNIGLOBE trademark.
The disputed domain name <uniglobetravel.agency> was registered on June 16, 2016. The disputed domain name previously resolved to a website purporting to offer the same kind of services as those of the Complainant. Currently, the disputed domain name resolves to a generic web page that specifies that the account has been suspended.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Complainant asserts that UNIGLOBE is a well-known brand in the travel industry and that the UNIGLOBE trademark is well known in Canada, the United States and Europe.
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s UNIGLOBE mark because it contains the UNIGLOBE mark in its entirety. Complainant also contends that the inclusion in the disputed domain name of the descriptive term “travel” creates confusion because Complainant is a travel agency and using the term “travel” in connection with Complainant’s UNIGLOBE mark conveys the idea that the disputed domain name emanates from Complainant.
Complainant argues that because it has established prior rights in and to its UNIGLOBE mark, and has not licensed or authorized Respondent to register the disputed domain name, Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant further contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, is not in any way affiliated with Complainant, and has not used the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead has used the disputed domain name in connection with the email address “[…]@uniglobetravel.agency” in order to pretend to be a relocation and immigration attorney of Uniglobe Travel Consultants in Germany for purposes of soliciting personal identifying information from unsuspecting consumers and to mislead consumers into making wire transfer payments to Respondent.
Finally, Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith since Respondent must have known of Complainant’s well-known UNIGLOBE mark given that Respondent has used the disputed domain name with an email address to solicit personal information from consumers for alleged visa, work permit and travel related services. Complainant further asserts that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is in bad faith as Respondent has used the disputed domain name for financial gain by misleading consumers into making wire transfer payments to respondent for fictitious processing fees.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 4.6 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”) states:
“4.6 Does failure of a respondent to respond to the complaint (respondent default) automatically result in the complainant being granted the requested remedy?
Consensus view: A respondent’s default does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the complainant … the complainant must establish each of the three elements required by paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP. Although a panel may draw appropriate inferences from a respondent’s default (e.g., to regard factual allegations which are not inherently implausible as being true), paragraph 4 of the UDRP requires the complainant to support its assertions with actual evidence in order to succeed in a UDRP proceeding.”
Thus, although in this case Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint, the burden remains with Complainant to establish the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy by a preponderance of the evidence. See The Knot, Inc. v. In Knot We Trust LTD, WIPO Case No. D2006-0340.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 1.1. Complainant has provided evidence that it owns numerous trademark registrations for the UNIGLOBE mark around the world, including in the European Union and Germany, where Respondent is allegedly located. Complainant has also submitted ample evidence that the UNIGLOBE mark has been used extensively with travel related services in many countries around the world for many years prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.
With Complainant’s rights in the UNIGLOBE mark established, the remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the disputed domain name (typically disregarding the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”)) is identical or confusingly similar with Complainant’s mark. See B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross, WIPO Case No. D2010-0842.
In the instant proceeding, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s UNIGLOBE mark as it incorporates the UNIGLOBE mark in its entirety at the head of the disputed domain name. The addition of the descriptive term “travel” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s UNIGLOBE mark and in fact heightens the confusion as the term relates directly to the very services provided by Complainant under its UNIGLOBE mark. Moreover, the confusing similarity is further affirmed here by the use of the gTLD extension “.agency” as it suggests that the disputed domain name is related to Complainant and/or to an “agency” associated with Complainant’s travel related business.
The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy in establishing its rights in the UNIGLOBE mark and in showing that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the complainant must make at least a prima facie showing that the respondent possesses no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International, WIPO Case No. D2008-1393. Once the complainant makes such a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent, though the burden of proof always remains on the complainant. If the respondent fails to come forward with evidence showing rights or legitimate interests, the complainant will have sustained its burden under the second element of the UDRP.
From the record in this case, it is evident that Respondent was, and is, well aware of Complainant and its UNIGLOBE mark and does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not made any bona fide or fair use of the disputed domain name in connection with any product or service. Rather, Respondent has used the disputed domain name as part of a scheme to deceive recipients of fraudulent job offers into providing their confidential personal and financial information and to make payment of fictitious processing fees. Indeed, Complainant has produced (i) numerous examples of email correspondence and forms sent by Respondent (using the disputed domain name) to job seekers falsely soliciting personal information from such job seekers for alleged visa and work permit services, (ii) consumer complaints from individuals who have been deceived into paying fictitious processing fees in connection with Respondent’s fraudulent scheme, and (iii) web pages from a website at the disputed domain name that feature the name and mark UNIGLOBE TRAVEL and which provides misleading and false information regarding a purported Uniglobe Travel company. Complainant has also provided evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name by using the fictitious alias Gerhard W Lenzen and falsely claimed an association with the law firm of Green Traurig Germany, LLP, when no such connection exists.2 Such actions by Respondent constitutes a form of phishing, are fraudulent in nature, and do not, and cannot, constitute a bona fide use or legitimate interest.
Given that Complainant has established with sufficient evidence that it owns rights in the UNIGLOBE mark, and given Respondent’s above noted actions and failure to file a response, the Panel concludes that Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and that none of the circumstances of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy are evident in this case.
In sum, the Panel finds that in this case Complainant has established a prima facie case showing that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. As Respondent, although given an opportunity to present its case, has decided not to submit a response and put forward arguments as to why it should be regarded as having rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Panel concludes that, based on the available record, Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie case. Complainant thus prevails on this element of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that Respondent’s actions indicate that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances indicating bad faith registration and use on the part of a domain name registrant, namely:
“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have 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 your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have 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 you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.”
In the present case, Respondent has registered the disputed domain name that fully incorporates Complainant’s UNIGLOBE mark with the addition of the generic term “travel” and the gTLD “.agency”. Such combination creates a likelihood of confusion by suggesting to consumers that the disputed domain name concerns Complainant or Complainant’s travel related business. Given that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to send what appear to be fraudulent emails and forms to job seekers that feature the UNIGLOBE name and mark, and has used the disputed domain for a website that features the name and mark UNIGLOBE TRAVEL, there can be no doubt that Respondent was aware of Complainant and its UNIGLOBE mark when Respondent registered the disputed domain name. Needless to say, given that the uncontested evidence shows that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to send apparently fraudulent emails to consumers to elicit personal information and to scam individuals into making alleged processing payments, it is clear that Respondent specifically targeted Complainant and its UNIGLOBE mark, and has done so opportunistically and in bad faith.
Respondent’s bad faith is further established by the fact Respondent has sought to conceal its identity by registering the disputed domain name by using false contact information and by falsely claiming to be associated with the Greenberg Traurig Germany LLP law firm. Such actions by Respondent, when coupled with the sending of false and fraudulent emails to job seekers for alleged visa and work permit services, underscores Respondent’s overall bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant succeeds under this 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 <uniglobetravel.agency> be transferred to Complainant.
Georges Nahitchevansky
Sole Panelist
Date: May 9, 2017
1 Although the registrant of the disputed domain name is listed as Gerhard W Lenzen, Greenberg Traurig Germany LLP, and therefore correctly named as Respondent under the Rules, the Panel finds that the Greenberg Traurig Germany LLP name was falsely used to register the disputed domain name and was likely done in furtherance of the true registrant’s scam, discussed in Section 6.
2 It should be noted that the Center received a letter dated April 28, 2017, that appears to have originated from Greenberg Traurig Germany. That letter specified that that there is no individual employed by Greenberg Traurig Germany by the name of Gerhard W Lenzen.