WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

SYSTRA v. Eq Brain

Case No. D2017-1479

1. The Parties

The Complainant is SYSTRA of Paris, France, represented by Cabinet Sarrut Avocats, France.

The Respondent is Eq Brain of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <systragroup.com> is registered with 1&1 Internet AG (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 31, 2017. On July 31, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 1, 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 August 4, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 24, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 25, 2017.

The Center appointed Marilena Comanescu as the sole panelist in this matter on August 29, 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.

The language of the proceeding is English.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is an international engineering and consulting group specialized in railway transportation and railway network, as well as urban transport and networks (subway, trams).

The Complainant holds International registration for SYSTRA trademark number 1162886 registered on April 12, 2013 and designating many countries and jurisdictions worldwide including the European Union, New Zealand, China, Algeria, Russian Federation and claiming services in classes 37, 39 and 42.

The Complainant’s main website is available at “www.systra.com”.

The disputed domain name was registered on July 20, 2017 and at the time the Complaint was filed, it did not resolve to an active website.

The Complainant has submitted unrefuted evidence that the disputed domain name has been used to send fraudulent emails impersonating a representative of the Complainant to another employee of the Complainant in order to try to obtain fraudulent monetary gain.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark SYSTRA, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

In view of the default and the absence of any reply to the Complaint by the Respondent, the discussion and findings will be based upon the contentions in the Complaint and any reasonable position that can be attributable to the Respondent. Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant can only succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy if the following circumstances are met:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which complainant has rights; and

(ii) respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and

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

The Panel shall further analyze the potential concurrence of such circumstances.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has rights in the SYSTRA trademark.

The dominant part of the disputed domain name <systragroup.com> incorporates the Complainant’s trademark SYSTRA in its entirety. In addition to this, the disputed domain name contains the common term “group”.

Numerous UDRP panels have considered that the addition of descriptive wording to trademarks in a domain name is not sufficient to escape a finding of confusing similarity. See, section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

Further, it is well established in decisions under the UDRP that the presence or absence of characters (e.g., hyphens, dots) in a domain name and indicators for generic Top-Level Domains (e.g., “.com”, “.info”, “.net”, “.org”) are typically irrelevant to the consideration of confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name.

Given the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name <systragroup.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark SYSTRA, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant asserts that it has given no authorization to the Respondent to use or register its trademark, the Respondent is not an affiliate of the Complainant, the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website but it is used to send fraudulent emails (Annex 5 to the Complaint). In line with previous UDRP decisions made in similar circumstances, the Panel accepts that the Complainant has provided a prima facie case of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in relation to the disputed domain name, and the burden of production shifts to the Respondent.

The Respondent chose not to challenge the Complainant’s allegations and evidence. There is nothing before the Panel to support the contrary, and therefore the Panel accepts these arguments and evidence as facts.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name <systragroup.com>, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii).

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The trademark SYSTRA has been registered and used worldwide since at least 2013.

The disputed domain name was registered on July 20, 2017 and incorporates the SYSTRA trademark and the dictionary term “group”.

The Complainant provided evidence in Annex 5 to the Complaint showing that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name even from the second day after its registration, namely on July 21, 2017, to send fraudulent emails impersonating a representative of the Complainant in an attempt to receive from another employee of the Complainant the urgent payment of a very likely fraudulent invoice. The Panel finds this convincing evidence of bad faith.

The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint and its physical contact address seems incomplete or wrong. Given the other circumstances of the case, such behavior may be considered as further evidence of bad faith in registering and using the disputed domain name.

Further, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website. The passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith. See section3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name <systragroup.com> in bad faith, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii).

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 <systragroup.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Marilena Comanescu
Sole Panelist
Date: September 6, 2017