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

Veolia Environnement SA v. Milen Radumilo

Case No. D2017-0713

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Veolia Environnement SA of Paris, France, internally represented.

The Respondent is Milen Radumilo of Bucharest, Romania.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <véolia.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Domain Name Origin, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 11, 2017. On April 11, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 11, 2017, 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 May 1, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 21, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 22, 2017.

The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on June 9, 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 the French holding company of the Veolia group founded more than 160 years ago. It had a turnover of some EUR 24.3 billion in 2016 and 163,000 employees around the world. Its three core businesses comprise the supply of water to up to 100 million people, the treatment of 30 million metric tons of waste and the production of 54 million MWh of electricity. The Complainant has a presence on all five continents and operates in Romania where the Respondent appears to be located.

The Complainant is the proprietor of many trademark registrations in respect of the word mark VEOLIA including International trademark number 814678 VEOLIA registered on September 11, 2003, designating a number of territories including Romania, and European Union trademark number 910325 VEOLIA registered as of March 10, 2006. The Complainant promotes its services through a website at the domain name <veolia.com> that was registered on December 30, 2002.

The Domain Name was registered on March 2, 2016. It resolves to a web parking page comprising sponsored links to the websites of third parties that have no connection with the Complainant.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its VEOLIA trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

For this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has uncontested rights in the VEOLIA trademark (the “Mark”), both by virtue of its many trademark registrations and as a result of the goodwill and reputation acquired through its use of the Mark over very many years. Ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.com”, the Domain Name is identical to the Mark save that the Domain Name comprises an accented “e”, termed an “e-acute”, as used in French and other languages. In the view of the Panel, the addition of this accent does not detract from the identity or confusing similarity of the Domain Name to the Mark, particularly since the Complainant is a French company. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has made out a strong prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, but for a website comprising sponsored links to third party websites. There is no suggestion that the Respondent has ever been known by the Domain Name. In response to a cease and desist letter sent on behalf of the Complainant, the Respondent replied that “I don’t think this name is similar. I can sell this name for $1400 [USD 1,400].” The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint or to take any steps to counter the prima facie case established by the Complainant. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

In view of the notoriety of the Complainant’s VEOLIA mark, the Panel is in no doubt that the Respondent had the Complainant and its rights in the Mark in mind when it registered the Domain Name. The Panel cannot conceive of a legitimate, bona fide use to which the Respondent could put the Domain Name. In the Panel’s view, the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name for a web page comprising sponsored links to third party websites and the Respondent’s reaction to the cease and desist letter - offering the Domain Name for sale at an inflated price clearly amounting to more than out of pocket expenses for registering the Domain Name - together represent paradigm bad faith registration and use for the purposes of the Policy.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the 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 Domain Name <véolia.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Ian Lowe
Sole Panelist
Date: June 20, 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/