WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Oney Bank v. Milen Radumilo

Case No. D2021-1256

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Oney Bank, France, represented by SafeBrands, France.

The Respondent is Milen Radumilo, Romania.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <serviceoney.com> is registered with Communigal Communications Ltd. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 22, 2021. On April 23, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 9, 2021, 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 the Complainant on May 10, 2021, 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 amendment to the Complaint on May 14, 2021.

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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 17, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 6, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 7, 2021.

The Center appointed Eva Fiammenghi as the sole panelist in this matter on June 11, 2021. 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, Oney Bank, is a French company specialized in consumer credit, electronic payments, and payment card management. Since 1983, the Complainant has become one of the leading financial partners in the European Union with a portfolio of 10 million customers.

The Complainant is the owner, among others, of the following trademarks for ONEY:

- International trademark registration number 865742 ONEY, registered on August 11, 2005, in classes 9, 36 and 38;

- International trademark registration number 947985 ONEY, registered on July 11, 2007, in classes 9, 36 and 38;

The Complainant is also the owner of the following domain names:

- <oney.com> registered on October 12, 2003;

- <oney.ro> registered before 2001.

The disputed domain name <serviceoney.com> was registered on September 27, 2020, and resolves to various different websites including the website displaying pay-per-click links. The disputed domain name is also proposed for sale on the Afternic platform for USD 688.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its domain names and trademark ONEY.

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ONEY trademark despite of the addition of the word “service” to the trademark in the disputed domain name.

In fact, even if the added word “service” could be considered generic and descriptive, in this case, is directly related to the services offered by the Complainant (Gateway, Inc. v. Domaincar, WIPO Case No. D2006-0604).

It is uncontroverted that the Complainant has established rights in the ONEY trademark based on longstanding use and registration. The disputed domain name <serviceoney.com> consists of the descriptive word “service” followed by ONEY trademark, and followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”.

Thus, especially in this case, the use of the word “service” determines an obvious association with the Complainant’s trademark and does not dispel the likelihood of confusion.

To the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent has never been commonly known by the disputed domain name and has never acquired any trademark or service mark rights in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent cannot establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.

By providing pay-per-click links to both the Complainant and the Complainant’s competitors websites and, selling the disputed domain name in excess of its out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name, the Respondent’s actions are clearly commercial and, therefore, the Respondent cannot establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy. See, e.g., Volkswagen AG v. Privacy Protection Services, WIPO Case No. D2012-2066 (use of a domain name in connection with a web page that “only contains advertisements as sponsored links” is “for presumed commercial gain”). Nor has the Respondent used the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.

The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name to advance rights or legitimate interests.

The Complainant has never licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademark or to register any domain name including its trademark.

The Complainant argues that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

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

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must prove that:

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

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

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

These elements are discussed in turn below. In considering these elements, paragraph 15(a) of the Rules provides that the Panel shall 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

In the present case, the disputed domain name incorporates the word “oney”, which is identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark ONEY.

It is clear that the disputed domain name incorporates in its entirety the ONEY trademark to which the term “service” has been added. The addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). The Panel further notes that the term “service” may refer to the services offered by the Complainant.

The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name <serviceoney.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark ONEY.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has, therefore, been met.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii), the Complainant has to demonstrate that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Respondent is not in any way affiliated with the Complainant, nor has the Complainant authorized or licensed the Respondent to use its trademarks, or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the said trademarks.

The Complainant contends that there is no relationship with the Respondent that gives rise to any license, permit, or other right to which the Respondent could enjoy such use of any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s ONEY trademark.

In addition, the Complainant argues as the Respondent receives click-through fees for diverting Internet users to third-party websites (see Zedge Ltd. v. Moniker Privacy Services / Aaron Wilson, WIPO Case No. D2006-1585, “the use of the domain name as a parking website is not a bona fide non-commercial use”).

The Panel finds no evidence that the Respondent has used, or undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Likewise, no evidence has been adduced that the Respondent has commonly been known by the disputed domain name; nor, for the reasons mentioned above, is the Respondent making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. On the record, the Panel therefore finds that the Complaint fulfills the second condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant has registered its ONEY trademark long before the registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent. The disputed domain name resolves to various different websites including the website displaying pay-per-click links, some of which compete with the services offered by the Complainant.

The Respondent, by using the disputed domain name, is intentionally misleading the consumers and confusing them by trying to attract them to other websites and making them believe that the websites behind those links are associated or recommended by the Complainant. The disputed domain name is used to divert Internet users to other sites offering third-party services.

On the basis of the above, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to attract Internet users, for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks and domain names (Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv)).

The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name is proposed for sale on the Afternic platform for USD 688.

Accordingly, pursuant to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith by the Respondent.

On this basis, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the third and last point of the Policy, 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 <serviceoney.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Eva Fiammenghi
Sole Panelist
Date: June 25, 2021