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

Aviva Brands Limited v. NAME REDACTED and Repossessed by Wild West Domains

Case No. D2020-0747

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Aviva Brands Limited, United Kingdom, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.

The Respondents are NAME REDACTED, United Kingdom, and Repossessed by Wild West Domains, United States of America.

2. The Domain Names and Registrars

The disputed domain name, <avivaltd.com> (the “First Domain Name”), is registered with Mesh Digital Limited (the “First Registrar”).

The disputed domain name, <avivauk.com> (the “Second Domain Name”), is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC (the “Second Registrar”)

The First Domain Name and the Second Domain Name are together referred to as the “Domain Names” and the First Registrar and Second Registrar are together referred to as the “Registrars”.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 27, 2020. On March 30, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars requests for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On March 31, 2020, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification responses disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Names, which in the case of one of the Domain Names differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Second Registrar informed the Center that it had repossessed the Second Domain Name. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 31, 2020, informing the Complainant that the Second Domain Name had been repossessed by the Second Registrar. On April 6, 2020, the Complainant requested the suspension of the proceedings for purposes of settlement negotiations. Pursuant to paragraph 17 of the Rules, on April 6, 2020, the Center suspended the administrative proceeding.

On April 24, 2020, the Complainant requested that the Center reinstitute the administrative proceeding. On April 24, 2020, the Center reinstituted the administrative proceeding and provided the Complainant with the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrars and invited the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on April 24, 2020. On April 24, 2020, the Center received an email communication from the individual named as the registrant of the Second Domain Name, which is discussed below.

The Center verified that the Complaint, together with the amended 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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 27, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 17, 2020. The Center received an email communication from a third party on May 1, 2020, which is discussed below. No formal Response was received from the Respondents. On May 18, 2020, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Rules, the Center notified the Parties that it would proceed with panel appointment.

The Center appointed Tony Willoughby as the sole panelist in this matter on May 25, 2020. 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 filing of the Amended Complaint stemmed from the fact that the registrant of the First Domain Name made use of a privacy service on registration of the First Domain Name. In response to the Center’s Registrar Verification request made of the First Registrar, the First Registrar disclosed the name of the underlying registrant. The individual named as the registrant of the First Domain Name emailed the Center on May 1, 2020, having received notice of the Complaint. The email claimed that the individual concerned had nothing to do with registration of either of the Domain Names notwithstanding that his name and address were used on registration of the First Domain Name. The issue is dealt with in greater detail below, but given the nature of the use made of the Domain Names, the Panel finds it most unlikely that the true registrant would have provided his name and address on registration of either of the Domain Names. Accordingly, the Panel takes the view that it would be wrong for an innocent bystander to be named as a Respondent; hence redaction of his name from the published decision.

As to the Second Domain Name, the Second Registrar, whose WhoIs database identifies the registrant of the Second Domain Name as “Repossessed by Wild West Domains”, has stated in response to the Center’s Registrar Verification request that “Repossessed by Wild West Domains” is not the registrant of the Second Domain Name, but has not disclosed the name of the original registrant.

For the reasons set out in Section 6A below, the Panel has concluded that the unknown registrants of the Domain Names are in fact one and the same person and all references hereafter to the “Respondent” are references to that unknown registrant.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a wholly owned subsidiary in the group of companies headed by Aviva PLC, a multinational insurance company headquartered in London, United Kingdom. The Complainant group of companies has been officially known as “Aviva” since 2002, but the business can trace its origins back to the 17th century.

Aviva PLC is the registered proprietor of numerous trade mark registrations covering its name. For present purposes it is only necessary to mention one of those registrations, namely United Kingdom registration No. 2278305B AVIVA (word) registered on May 10, 2002 (application filed on August 17, 2001), for various goods and services in classes 16, 36, 42, and 45.

The Complainant group of companies operates websites connected to the domain names, <aviva.com> (registered April 12, 1996), <aviva.co.uk> (registered September 24, 1999), and <aviva-uk.com> (registered June 30, 2012).

The First Domain Name was registered on November 20, 2019. The Second Domain Name was registered on November 12, 2019. Neither of the Domain Names has been connected to an active website.

On November 26, 2019, the Respondent used the Second Domain Name to send an email to an unconnected third party. The email purported to come from a customer service manager employed by the Complainant. The email incorporated the employee’s full email signature (name, title, address, and telephone number) as well as the Complainant’s logo and address. Attachments included an investment brochure of the Complainant and information on an investment product. The correspondence using the Second Domain Name continued on November 27, 2019.

On November 28, 2019, the Respondent used the First Domain Name when following up on the previous day’s exchanges and on this occasion attaching an application form for an investment bond.

On December 5, 2019, the Respondent sent a follow-up email using the Second Domain Name notifying the addressee that “the bond is nearly fully subscribed”.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that while the Domain Names are held in different names, the use made of them, as identified in the email exchanges described above, make it clear that the person making use of the Domain Names is one and the same and that both the Domain Names should be dealt with in this administrative proceeding.

The Complainant further contends that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s AVIVA trade mark; that that was the intention when the Respondent registered the Domain Names, as is evident from the use made of the Domain Names. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names. Both the Domain Names have been registered and used in bad faith, presumably for the purposes of “phishing”.

B. Respondent

The Respondent has not responded to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Preliminary Issue - consolidation

Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that “The complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder”. Here the Domain Names are held in different names, but the Panel is satisfied from the evidence filed by the Complainant and detailed in Section 4 above that the underlying registrant of each of the Domain Names is one and the same individual. Both the Domain Names were used in a single set of emails purporting to emanate from the same employee of the Complainant and addressed to the same third party.

Paragraph 10(e) of the Rules gives to the Panel the power to decide requests to consolidate multiple domain name disputes. The Panel accedes to the Complainant’s request for consolidation.

A. General

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Names, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:

(i) the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

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

(iii) the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Self-evidently, the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark; they begin with and contain the mark appended by “ltd” and “uk” respectively.

Thus, the Complaint succeeds under the first head of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests, Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds it convenient to discuss these matters together, see generally WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”) at section 2.15. The Respondent has not claimed any right or legitimate interest in respect of the Domain Names and, given the fraudulent use that has been made of the Domain Names, the Panel cannot conceive of any basis upon which the Respondent might be said to have any such rights or legitimate interests. The use to which the Domain Names have been put is plainly fraudulent and the Domain Names will have been registered for that purpose.

Thus, the Complaint succeeds under the second and third heads of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

D. Redaction

As can be seen from the heading of this decision, the name of one of the named Respondents has been redacted. The individual whose name has been redacted contacted the Center on notification of the Complaint and disclaimed any knowledge of the Domain Names. He stated that his name and address had been used without his authority.

The Panel is satisfied that that is likely to have been the case. The Domain Names have been used to impersonate an employee of the Complainant, so impersonation of a third party for the registration process is plausible. The Panel believes it most unlikely that a registrant of a domain name to be used for a dishonest purpose would conveniently leave behind a ready means of tracing his identity and whereabouts.

In the view of the Panel it would be wrong in light of this likely identity theft for an innocent bystander to appear as a respondent in the published decision. Accordingly, the Panel has redacted that individual’s name from the caption and body of this Decision. Attached as Annex 1 to this Decision is the Panel's instruction to the Registrars regarding transfer of the Domain Names. Annex 1 names the named registrant of the First Domain Name and authorises the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrars as part of the order in this proceeding. However, the Panel has further directed the Center, pursuant to paragraph 4(j) of the Policy and paragraph 16(b) of the Rules, that Annex 1 shall not be published, given the exceptional circumstances of this case.

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 Names, <avivaltd.com> and <avivauk.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Tony Willoughby
Sole Panelist
Date: May 26, 2020

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/