WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Belfius Bank S.A., Belfius Bank N.V. v. Tijgerrtje Makaksken / Not disclosed Not disclosed / de donder angela / kom thijs / commen thijs

Case No. D2020-3266, D2020-3271, D2020-3292, D2020-3293 and D2020-3294

1. The Parties

The Complainants are Belfius Bank S.A., Belfius Bank N.V., Belgium, internally represented.

The Respondent is Tijgerrtje Makaksken / Not disclosed Not disclosed / de donder angela / kom thijs / commen thijs, Belgium.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain names <belfius-helpdesk.info> ( WIPO Case No. D2020-3266) and <belfius-blokkade.info> ( WIPO Case No. D2020-3271) are registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp.

The disputed domain names <belfius-servicedesk.icu> ( WIPO Case No. D2020-3292), <belfius-helpdesk.icu> ( WIPO Case No. D2020-3293) and <belfius-blokkades.icu> ( WIPO Case No. D2020-3294) are registered with NETIM SARL.

Hereinafter all referred to as the “Registrar”.

3. Procedural History

The five Complaints were filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 3 and December 4, 2020 (each Complaint concerning one of the disputed domain names). On December 3 and December 4, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar requests for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On December 4, 8 and 18, 2020, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details of the domain name <belfius-blokkade.info> and disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names <belfius-helpdesk.info>, <belfius-servicedesk.icu>, <belfius-helpdesk.icu> and <belfius-blokkades.icu> which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent email communications to the Complainant on December 8, December 23, December 28, and December 30, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrars, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed amended Complaints on December 10, December 28, December 30, 2020, and inquired about the possibility of consolidating the relevant Complaints on January 4, 2021, and submitted a consolidation request on January 15, 2021 along with further emails about the consolidation on January 11, and January 22, 2021.

The Center verified that the Complaints 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 10, December 11, 2020, January 6, and January 11, 2021 respectively. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due dates for Response were December 30, December 31, 2020, January 26 and February 1, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 3, January 6, January 28 and February 2, 2021.

The Center appointed Benoit Van Asbroeck as the sole panelist in proceeding D2020-3271 on January 15, 2021, in proceeding D2020-3294 on January 28, 2021, in proceedings D2020-3292 and D2020-3293 on February 4, 2021, and in proceeding D2020-3266 on February 11, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statements of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence in each one of these proceedings, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainants, Belfius Banque S.A. and Belfius Bank NV, are Belgian banks and financial services providers operating mainly in Belgium (hereinafter named both together as “the Complainant”). The Complainant is wholly owned by the Belgian state. The Complainant has over 650 agencies in Belgium with more than 5,000 employees and is well-known for providing a wide range of banking, insurance, and financial services.

According to the Complainant, its activities are focused on the Belgian territory, nevertheless, its trademark is also shown outside Belgium as it sponsors several national sports teams and sports events.

The Complainant is the owner of the trademark BELFIUS across various jurisdictions. These registrations include:

- European Union Trade Mark BELFIUS with registration No. 010581205, registered on May 24, 2012, in International classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41, and 45;

- Benelux trademark BELFIUS with registration No. 914650, registered on May 10, 2012, in International classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41, and 45;

- Benelux trademark BELFIUS with registration No. 915963, registered on June 11, 2012, in International classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41, and 45;

- Benelux trademark BELFIUS with registration No. 915962, registered on June 11, 2012, in International classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41, and 45.

Additionally, the Complainant is also the registrant of 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 the domain name <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 the Complainant’s official website.

The disputed domain names <belfius-helpdesk.info>, <belfius-helpdesk.icu>, <belfius-blokkade.info>, <belfius-blokkades.icu and <belfius-servicedesk.icu> were registered between August 13, 2020 and September 2, 2020. The disputed domain names currently do not resolve to active websites and are subject to a safety warning from Google.

Cease and desist letters were sent to the Respondent by email in September and October 2020, to request the transfer of the disputed domain names to the Complainant. They remained unanswered.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in the present case, as follows:

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

The Complainant contends that the generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLD”) “.info” and “.icu” may be disregarded for the purpose of determining whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BELFIUS trademark.

Relying on Britannia Building Society v. Britannia Fraud Prevention, WIPO Case No. D2001-0505, the Complainant further argues that by incorporating the Complainant’s BELFIUS trademark in its entirety, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

The Complainant further argues that the incorporation of a well-known trademark into a domain name is sufficient ground for finding a likelihood of confusion (Yellow Corporation v. MIC, WIPO Case No. D2003-0748; Playboy Entreprises International, Inc. V. John Taxiarchos, WIPO Case No. D2006-0561).

Additionally, the Complainant claims that the mere adjunction of the generic terms “blockade(s)” (which translates as “blockage(s)), “helpdesk” and “servicedesk” does not negate the confusingly similarity between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s trademark. Taken in combination with the Complainant’s trademark, these terms strengthen the association with the Complainant as refers to the activities of the Complainant and evoke a service related to the blocking of bank accounts and/or customer support allegedly offered by or related to the Complainant.

(b) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.

The Complainant further submits that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names after the Complainant’s registration of its BELFIUS trademark.

The Complainant also states that it has never licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark or to register any domain name including the Complainant’s trademark. There is no relationship with the Complainant, nor has the Respondent trademark rights in the term “belfius”.

Furthermore, the Respondent does not appear to have used the disputed domain names for any legitimate noncommercial purpose. Nor are there any indications of demonstrable preparation to use the disputed domain names, accordingly, they are being passively held. The Complainant alleges that such passive holding is evidence of a lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names (see American Home Products Corporation v. Ben Malgioglio, WIPO Case No. D2000-1602; Vestel Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret AS v. Mehmet Kahveci, WIPO Case No. D2000-1244; Red Bull GmbH v. Credit du Léman SA, Jean-Denis Deletraz, WIPO Case No. D2011-2209).

(c) the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names in August and September 2020, which is after the Complainant filed for registration of its BELFIUS trademark in 2012. The Complainant also notes that it has established a substantial presence on the Internet and that the Respondent would have been aware of the Complainant by virtue of a good faith search. The Complainant has indeed registered more than 200 domain names worldwide which incorporate the BELFIUS trademark. The Complainant therefore contends that, at the time of registration of the disputed domain names, the Respondent knew or should have been aware of the existence of the Complainant’s trademarks. Such awareness of the Complainant’s trademark suggests bad faith (see LEGO Juris A/S v. Domains by Proxy, Inc., DomainsByProxy.com / DBA David Inc., WIPO Case No. D2011-1839; Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd. / Conquistador Sat, WIPO Case No. D2013-1458).

The Complainant further contends that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith for the following reason: the term “belfius” is a coined term and the mere coincidence of an identical (fictional) name in the disputed domain names cannot be accepted. The adjunction of the term “blockade(s)”, “helpdesk” and “servicedesk” proves that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant.

As for the use of the disputed domain names, the evidence shows that the Respondent clearly does not use or does not seem to have the intention to use the disputed domain names for purposes of bona fide offering of goods and services over the Internet. The security warning displayed by the Internet browser seems to indicate illicit activities, no other content is displayed on the website.

In addition, the Complainant refers to a previously rendered UDRP decisions (see, Inter-IKEA v. Polanski, WIPO Case No. D2000-1614; Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. Hoon Huh, WIPO Case No. D2000-0438; Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003) which found that the passive holding of a domain name may amount to bad faith when it is difficult to imagine any plausible future active use of the domain name by the respondent that would be legitimate.

Furthermore, the Complainant states that the concealment of the Respondent’s identity is an indication of bad faith as it is inspired solely to make it difficult for the Complainant to protect its trademark rights.

The Complainant also argues that the Respondent has ignored the Complainant’s attempt to resolve this dispute outside of this administrative proceeding. Relying on Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. John Zuccarini and The Cupcake Patrol a/ka Country Walk a/k/a Cupcake Party, WIPO Case No. D2000-0330, the Complainant asserts that failure to respond to a cease-and-desist letter may be considered as a factor in finding bad faith registration and use of a domain names.

Finally, the Complainant also argues that the mere passive holding of the disputed domain names, in combination with the concealment of the Respondent identity may be considered bad faith use of the disputed domain names (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003).

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Consolidation Request

The Panel notes that by the time the Complainant sent its first email communication concerning the possibility of a consolidation (on January 4, 2021), the Complaints in two of these proceedings had been notified to the Respondent(s), and these proceedings had formally commenced. On January 15, 2021, the Complainant submitted a consolidation request arguing the Respondent is the same in the WIPO Cases No. D2020-3266, D2020-3271, D2020-3292, D2020-3293 and D2020-3294. The Panel finds that a request to consolidate the complaints after the notification (of one or more of these complaints) to the respondent(s), and consequently where one or more of the proceedings have formally commenced, would typically be addressed by the panel on appointment. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 10(e) of the Rules and 4(f) of the Policy, the Panel will address the consolidation request.

Pursuant to WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2, where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario.

The Panel may consider a range of factors to determine whether consolidation is appropriate, such as examining relevant registrant contact information, and any naming patterns in the disputed domain names, or other evidence of respondent affiliation that indicate common control of the disputed domain names.

In the present case, the Complainant has demonstrated that there are certain common elements in the disputed domain names, but above all a common control:

- the registrants are all located in Belgium;

- some of the disputed domain names involved in the present case are associated with the same (false) registrant address;

- the same privacy shield was used to register the disputed domain names <belfius-helpdesk.info> and <belfius-blokkade.info>;

- the disputed domain names <belfius-helpdesk.info>, <belfius-helpdesk.icu>, <belfius-servicedesk.icu> and <belfius-blokkades.icu> share a similar email domain address, all ending with “@yopmail.com”;

- the disputed domain names <belfius-helpdesk.icu> and <belfius-blokkades.icu> share a very similar registrant name;

- the close registration dates of the disputed domain names, i.e. between August 13, 2020 and September 2, 2020; and

- all disputed domain names have a similar naming pattern, each with the Complainant’s BELFIUS trademark and additional Dutch or English terms carrying a similar meaning and evoking a service related to the blocking of bank accounts and/or customer support allegedly offered by or related to the Complainant;

- all disputed domain names have a common content, each resolving to a similar security warning blocking access to the website.

The circumstance of common control is, in the opinion of this Panel, the decisive factor in order to grant the consolidation requested by the Complainant.

Moreover, as the Respondent neither objected to the consolidation of the Complaints nor indicated that it would suffer any prejudice from the consolidation of these proceedings, the Panel is of the view that such consolidation is fair and equitable to all Parties and it is therefore procedurally efficient to allow the Complaints to be consolidated and decided in a single decision.

Accordingly, conditions for consolidation of the Complaints into one matter are present here.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant is required to establish the two following elements: (1) that it has trademark rights, and, if so, (2) that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to its trademark(s).

First of all, this Panel finds that the Complainant has clearly evidenced that it has registered trademark rights in BELFIUS.

Secondly, this Panel finds, similarly to other UDRP panels, that the addition of the gTLDs “.info” and “.icu” to the disputed domain names is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is to be disregarded.

Thirdly, the disputed domain names fully incorporate the Complainant’s BELFIUS trademark in which the Complainant has exclusive rights.

Fourthly, this Panel finds that the addition of a hyphen and the terms “blockade(s)” (which translates as “blockage(s)), “helpdesk” and “servicedesk” do not constitute an element so as to avoid a finding of confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy. See in this regard section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, stating that where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.

On the basis of the foregoing findings, and according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, this Panel finds and concludes that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BELFIUS trademark.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists circumstances, in particular but without limitation, which, if found by the Panel to be proved, demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy reads:

“Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii):

(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”

This Panel finds that there is no evidence that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

It is a well-established view of UDRP panels, with which this Panel agrees, that a prima facie case advanced by the complainant is generally sufficient for the complainant to satisfy the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, provided that the respondent does not submit any evidence to the contrary rebutting the Complainant’s prima facie case (AGUAS DE CABREIROA, S.A.U. v. Hello Domain, WIPO Case No. D2014-2087; Spigen Korea Co., Ltd., Spigen Inc. v. Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp., WIPO Case No. D2016-0145; HubSpot, Inc. v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Steve Johnson, WIPO Case No. D2016-1338).

In the present case, taking into consideration the Respondent’s default, this Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, in view of the circumstances of this case, including the following factors:

- there is no evidence that the Respondent has been licensed or authorized to use the disputed domain names by the Complainant;

- there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names;

- there is no evidence that legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names has taken place.

For all the foregoing reasons, this Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy identifies, in particular but without limitation, four circumstances which, if found by this Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy reads:

“For the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name 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 your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

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

(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your 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 your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.”

Each of the four circumstances in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, if found, would be an instance of “registration and use of a domain name in bad faith”.

With regard to the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names, this Panel believes bad faith may be found where the Respondent knew or should have known of the registration and use of the BELFIUS trademark prior to registering the disputed domain names. Such is true in the present case in which the Respondent registered the disputed domain names after the Complainant obtained its trademark registrations for the BELFIUS trademark. The Complainant’s presence on the Internet makes it disingenuous for the Respondent to claim that he was unaware that the registration of the disputed domain names would violate the Complainant’s rights.

Additionally, since that the Complainant’s trademark is an invented word with no meaning in any language apart from in relation to the Complainant’s service and that the Complainant is well-known for its financial services, it cannot be a mere coincidence that the Respondent has chosen the disputed domain names.

As to the current use of the disputed domain names, they do not resolve to an active website at the time of the Complaint and the Decision. However, passive holding of a domain name can, in certain circumstances, constitute a domain name being used in bad faith. Considering the failure of the Respondent to submit a response, the Respondent’s concealing its identity and the implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain names may be put, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has proven bad faith under the passive holding doctrine (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003).

In light of the foregoing, this Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used by the Respondent in bad faith under the Policy.

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, <belfius-helpdesk.info>, <belfius-helpdesk.icu>, <belfius-blokkade.info>, <belfius-blokkades.icu> and <belfius-servicedesk.icu> be transferred to the Complainant.

Benoit Van Asbroeck
Sole Panelist
Date: February 25, 2021