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

DeGiro B.V., flatex AG v. Registration Private, Domains by Proxy, LLC / Pepe Penia

Case No. D2020-2260

1. The Parties

Complainant is DeGiro B.V., Netherlands (“First Complainant”), and flatex AG, Germany (Second Complainant”), represented by Krammer Jahn Rechtsanwälte PartG mbB, Germany (“Complainants”).

Respondent is Registration Private, Domains by Proxy, LLC, United States of America (“United States”) / Pepe Penia, Spain.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <degiro-flatex.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 28, 2020. On August 28, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 31, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on September 1, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on September 4, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 7, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 27, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on September 28, 2020.

The Center appointed Lynda J. Zadra-Symes as the sole panelist in this matter on October 8, 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

Complainants DeGiro B.V. and flatex AG are related companies and recently announced the takeover of DeGiro B.V. by flatex AG.

First Complainant is a European brokerage company that offers stockbrokerage services to retail investors, giving them online access to security exchanges worldwide. Second Complainant is a listed German online broker and provider of financial technology.

First Complainant is the owner of the trademark DEGIRO and design, International Registration No. 1326592, registered on July 19, 2016 and designating Australia, Switzerland, the European Union and Norway for goods and services relating to financial affairs, tax advice, monetary affairs, financial transactions for investors and other goods and services relating to the field of investing.

Second Complainant is the owner of the trademark FLATEX European Registration No. 014661649, registered on January 25, 2016 for goods and services related to stock exchange and financial services, commercial trading and consumer information services, business assistance, management and administrative services, financial and monetary services and banking, real estate services, computer hardware and telecommunications apparatus installation, maintenance and repair, and other goods and services relating to stock exchange and financial services.

The disputed domain name was registered on January 26, 2020, and has been used for phishing emails from email addresses under the disputed domain name. At the time of this decision, the disputed domain name was inactive.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainants contend that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainants’ trademarks, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that it was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

In order to succeed in their claim, Complainants must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied:

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

(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and

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

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel to decide a complaint “on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainants have demonstrated that they have rights in the trademarks DEGIRO and FLATEX in connection with financial and monetary services, and related goods and services. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainants’ marks in their entirety, with the addition of a hyphen between the two marks.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainants’ trademarks.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainants contend that Respondent is not affiliated with or connected to Complainants in any way. At no time have Complainants licensed or otherwise endorsed, sponsored or authorized Respondent to use Complainants’ marks or to register the disputed domain name. The record is devoid of any facts that establish any rights or legitimate interests of Respondent in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has any rights that might predate Complainants’ adoption and use of their marks.

Respondent has not made, and is not making, a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services.

Instead, the record indicates that Respondent was well aware of Complainants’ marks and used the disputed domain name in phishing emails to customers of First Complainant attempting to obtain confidential information from the customer by attaching a DeGiro Account Management Agreement. Thus, Respondent knowingly adopted Complainants’ marks in the disputed domain name in an effort to create the false impression that Respondent is associated with Complainants and is an authorized representative of Complainants to defraud unsuspecting consumers into providing their financial information, or providing payment, to Respondent for Respondent’s personal profit and gain.

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The record indicates that the disputed domain name is being used in connection with a fraudulent scam designed to lure consumers into believing that they are being contacted by Complainants in order to defraud consumers into providing personal and financial information. On July 23, 2020, a customer of First Complainant received an email from “[...]@degiro-flatex.com” stating:

“Good afternoon. Mr. _____, I send you in the attachment the personalized management contract for you to sign and send. After your account is approved; Mr. Enrique will send you access to the platform with your username and password.
Sincerely,
Ricardo Henderson
Account Executive”

The email attached an Account Management Agreement on letterhead bearing Complainant’s DEGIRO mark.
The record indicates that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainants’ rights in their marks prior to registering the disputed domain name and that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in connection with a fraudulent scam for Respondent’s commercial gain by intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainants’ marks.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name 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 disputed domain name <degiro-flatex.com> be transferred to Complainants.

Lynda J. Zadra-Symes
Sole Panelist
Date: October 21, 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/