WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Belfius Bank S.A. / Belfius Bank N.V. v. Peter van den Boom

Case No. D2020-1644

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Belfius Bank S.A. / Belfius Bank N.V., Belgium, represented by Nelly Imandt, Belgium.

The Respondent is Peter van den Boom, Netherlands.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <kaartopvragen-belfius.info> and <opvragen-belfiuskaart.info> are registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 23, 2020. On June 23, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On June 23, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint.

The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 8, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 8, 2020.

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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 14, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 3, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 5, 2020.

The Center appointed Knud Wallberg as the sole panelist in this matter on August 12, 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a renowned Belgian bank and financial services provider with more than 5.000 employees and over 650 agencies.

The Complainant’s group is the owner of numerous trademarks incorporating iterations of BELFIUS, which is an invented word composed of "Bel" as in Belgium, "fi" as in finance and the English word "us”, including European Union Trademark no. 010581205 BELFIUS registered on May 24, 2012 for goods and services in international classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41, 45.

The Complainant is the registrant to the domain name <belfius.be> that resolves to its official website where it offers banking and insurance services. The Complainant is also the registrant of <belfius.com>, which redirects to a website intended for institutional partners and journalists, as well as many other domain names that include the word “BELFIUS” and redirect to its official website.

The disputed domain names <kaartopvragen-belfius.info> and <opvragen-belfiuskaart.info> were registered by the Respondent on January 10, 2020 and do not resolve to active webpages.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights

The Complainant states that the disputed domain names <kaartopvragen-belfius.info> and <opvragen-belfiuskaart.info> are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark BELFIUS, since they contain this mark in its entirety combined with the non-distinctive Dutch generic terms “kaart” and “opvragen”, translated in English as “card” and “request” respectively, and since the applicable generic Top-Level-Domain (“gTLD”) “.info” in a domain name is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded for the purpose of determining whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names

The Complainant further states that the Respondent is in no way associated with the Complainant. The Complainant has not licensed, approved or in any way consented to the Respondent’s registration and use of its trademark in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has no trademark rights on BELFIUSand does not seem to carry out any activity. Moreover, the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. In fact, the Respondent is not making any use of the disputed domain names in connection with an active website or even indicating demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain names.

The disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith

The Complainant emphasizes that it´s European Union trademark has been registered since 2012, whereas the disputed domain names were registered on January 10, 2020. The Respondent thus either knew or should have known of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain names. This is supported by the fact that the Complainant has established a substantial presence on the Internet through its more than 200 registered gTLDs and country-code Top-Level-Domains (“ccTLD”)worldwide, which all incorporate the trademark BELFIUS in the domain name.

The Complainant finally states that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names in January 2020 and seems to have done nothing with the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve, since no content is displayed on them. Such use can neither be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue in the sense of paragraph 4(c)(i) and (iii) of the Policy. In other words, there is no evidence of use, or demonstrable preparations to use and there is no evidence that the Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain names. The Complainant claims that such passive holding of domain names may amount to bad faith use, where it is difficult to imagine any plausible future active use of the disputed domain names by the Respondent that would be legitimate and not infringing the Complainant’s well-known mark.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following:

(i) that the disputed domain names registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;

(ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and

(iii) that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the burden of proving that all these elements are present lies with the Complainant. At the same time, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules, or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar (in the sense of the Policy) to the Complainant’s registered trademark because it contains the Complainant’s registered trademark BELFIUS in its entirety with the addition of the generic terms “kaart” and “opvragen”. The gTLD “.info” is a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. See Section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

The Panel finds that the conditions in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are therefore fulfilled in relation to the disputed domain names.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

According to the Complaint, the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademark.

Further, given the circumstances of this case, the Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has not rebutted this, and the way the Respondent is using the disputed domain names (see below in the section 6.C) does not support a finding of rights or legitimate interests.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the conditions in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy are also fulfilled.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove both registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides examples of circumstances which shall be evidence of registration and use in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that the holder has registered or has acquired the disputed domain names 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 the holder’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) the holder has registered the disputed domain names in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the holder has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) the holder has registered the disputed domain names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the disputed domain names, the holder has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the holder’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the holder’s website or location or of a product or service on the holder’s website or location.

Accordingly, for the Complainant to succeed, the Panel must be satisfied that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.

Given the circumstances of the case, in particular the extent of use and the distinctive nature of the Complainant’s BELFIUS mark, it is inconceivable to the Panel in the current circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names without prior knowledge of the Complainant and the Complainant’s marks. Further, the Panel finds that the Respondent could not have been unaware of the fact that the disputed domain names could attract Internet users in a manner that is likely to create confusion for such users.

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith.

The disputed domain names do not resolve to active webpages nor do they seem to have been actively used in other ways. However, as first stated in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, and repeated in many subsequent decisions under the UDRP: “the concept of a domain name ‘being used in bad faith’ is not limited to positive action; inaction is within the concept. That is to say, it is possible, in certain circumstances, for inactivity by the Respondent to amount to the domain name being used in bad faith.” See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

Noting that the disputed domain names incorporates the Complainant’s distinctive and widely used trademark BELFIUS and the gTLD “.info”, that no Response has been filed and that there appears to be no conceivable good faith use that could be made by the Respondent of the disputed domain names, and considering all the facts and evidence of the case, the Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy are also fulfilled in 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 disputed domain names <kaartopvragen-belfius.info> and <opvragen-belfiuskaart.info> be transferred to the Complainant.

Knud Wallberg
Sole Panelist
Date: September 2, 2020