WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Axa SA v. Sandra Ford

Case No. D2020-2354

1. The Parties

Complainant is Axa SA, France, represented by Cande Blanchard Ducamp Avocats, France.

Respondent is Sandra Ford, United States of America (“United States”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <axxabank.com> is registered with eNom, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 10, 2020. On September 10, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 10, 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 14, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on September 14, 2020.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 17, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 7, 2020. Respondent did not submit any formal Response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on October 12, 2020. On October 15, 2015, the Center received an email communication by Respondent according to which the disputed domain name had been canceled and was not in use anymore.

The Center appointed Stephanie G. Hartung as the sole panelist in this matter on October 15, 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

Complainant is a company organized under the laws of France that is active in the insurance, saving and asset management industry.

Complainant has provided evidence that it is the registered owner of various trademarks relating to its company name and brand “AXA”, including:

- Word mark AXA, International trademark, registration number: 490 030, registration date:
December 5, 1984, status: active;

- Word/device mark AXA, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), registration number:
2 072 157, registration date: June 17, 1997, status: active.

Moreover, Complainant has demonstrated to own various domain names relating to its AXA trademark, inter alia, the domain name <axa.com>, registered on October 23, 1995, which resolves to Complainant’s official website at “www.axa.com”, promoting Complainant’s business and related services in the insurance industry.

Respondent, according to the disclosed WhoIs information for the disputed domain name, is a resident of the United States who registered the disputed domain name on May 24, 2020. By the time of the rendering of this decision, the disputed domain name does not resolve to any active content on the Internet. Complainant, however, has demonstrated that at some point before the filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website at “www.axxabank.com” which copied substantial parts of Complainant’s official website at “ww.axa.com” and also reproduced Complainant’s AXA trademark, apparently for phishing purposes.

Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends to be a world leader in the insurance industry with roots going back to the 18th century and the trade name AXA being introduced back in 1985 and meanwhile well known around the world in the field of insurance and financial services.

Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AXA trademark as it reproduces the latter almost identically, apart from the repetition of the letter “x” and the addition of the word “bank”. Moreover, Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since (1) Complainant has never licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its AXA trademark or to register any domain name including it, and there is no relationship whatsoever between the Parties, (2) Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name or even associated with the well-known AXA trademark, and (3) Respondent has reproduced Complainant’s website by using the same logos and fonts to make Internet users believe that the website under “www.axxabank.com” was Complainant’s official website dedicated to banking services, thus using the disputed domain name for phishing purposes targeting at AXA customers. Finally, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith since (1) Respondent obviously was aware of Complainant’s AXA trademark when registering the disputed domain name, and the addition of the letter “x” reveals Respondent’s intention to confuse Internet users in order to carry out phishing activities, and (2) Respondent created a fake website under the disputed domain name similar to Complainant’s official website dedicated to banking services, which is a further indication of Respondent’s intent to carry out phishing activities and thus acting in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not formally reply to Complainant’s contentions, but sent an email communication to the Center on October 15, 2020, stating that the disputed domain name had been canceled and was not in use anymore.

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Complainant carries the burden of proving:

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

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

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

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name <axxabank.com> is confusingly similar to the AXA trademark in which Complainant has rights.

The disputed domain name <axxabank.com> incorporates the AXA trademark in its entirety with a simple misspelling caused by adding/doubling the letter “x”. Numerous UDRP panels have recognized that incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a registered trademark (see e.g., PepsiCo, Inc. v. PEPSI, SRL (a/k/a P.E.P.S.I.) and EMS Computer Industry (a/k/a EMS), WIPO Case No. D2003-0696). The fact that the disputed domain name also includes a second letter “x” which leads to a misspelling of Complainant’s AXA trademark is not at all inconsistent with such finding of confusing similarity. Misspelled or typo-squatted domain names are, on the contrary, intended to be confusing so that Internet users, who unwittingly make common typing errors, will enter the typo-squatted domain name instead of the correctly spelled trademark (see e.g., National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues, Inc., d/b/a Minor League Baseball v. John Zuccarini, WIPO Case No. D2002-1011). Moreover, it has been held in many UDRP decisions and has become a consensus view among panelists, that the addition of other terms (whether e.g. descriptive or otherwise) would not prevent the finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8). Accordingly, the addition of the descriptive term “bank” (which refers to Complainant’s core business) does not dispel the confusing similarity arising from the incorporation of Complainant’s AXA trademark in the disputed domain name.

Therefore, Complainant has established the first element under the Policy as set forth by paragraph 4(a)(i).

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel is further convinced on the basis of Complainant’s undisputed contentions that Respondent has not made use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor has Respondent been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Nor can it be found that Respondent has made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use thereof without intent for commercial gain.

Respondent has not been authorized to use Complainant’s AXA trademark, either as a domain name or in any other way. Also, there is no reason to believe that Respondent’s name somehow corresponds with the disputed domain name and Respondent does not appear to have any trademark rights associated with the term “AXA” on her own. To the contrary, Respondent apparently copied substantial elements from Complainant’s official website at “www.axa.com”, including Complainant’s official AXA trademark logo, which is highly likely to confuse Internet users in a fraudulent manner into believing that Respondent’s website is an official website run by Complainant itself. Such use of the disputed domain name neither qualifies as bona fide nor as legitimate noncommercial or fair.

Accordingly, Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Now, the burden of production shifts to Respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating to the contrary (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1). Given that Respondent has not submitted a formal Response and has not disputed Complainant’s contentions in any manner, even not in her email communication to the Center of October 15, 2020, Respondent has not met that burden.

Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has also satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) and, thus, the second element of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finally holds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.

Redirecting the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AXA trademark, to a website that copied substantial elements from Complainant’s official website at “www.axa.com”, including Complainant’s official AXA trademark logo, and doing so apparently for phishing purposes, is a clear indication that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to her own website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s AXA trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website. Such circumstances are evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Therefore, the Panel concludes that Complainant has also satisfied the third element under the Policy set forth by 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 <axxabank.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Stephanie G. Hartung
Sole Panelist
Date: October 20, 2020