WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Primonial v. nadine boyer

Case No. D2021-3754

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Primonial, France, represented by Novagraaf France, France.

The Respondent is nadine boyer, Israel.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <primonial-group.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 November 9, 2021. On November 10, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 10, 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 November 11, 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 amended Complaint on November 15, 2021.

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 November 22, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 12, 2021. The Center received email communications from the Respondent on November 16 and 22, 2021. The Center notified the commencement of Panel appointment process on December 13, 2021.

The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on December 20, 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.

The Panel has not received any requests from the Complainant or the Respondent regarding further submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information from the Parties.

Having reviewed the communication records in the case file provided by the Center, the Panel finds that the Center has discharged its responsibility under the Rules, paragraph 2(a), “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to the Respondent”. Therefore, the Panel shall issue its Decision based upon the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules and without the benefit of a formal response from the Respondent.

The language of the proceeding is English, being the language of the Registration Agreement, as per paragraph 11(a) of the Rules.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is Primonial, a French company operating in the wealth management field that owns several trademark registrations for PRIMONIAL, including the following:

- European Union Trademark Registration No. 006393649 for PRIMONIAL, registered on
January 7, 2009;

- French Trademark Registration No. 3495572 for PRIMONIAL, registered on April 18, 2007.

The Complainant also operates on the Internet, its official website being “www.primonial.com”.

The Complainant provided evidence in support of the above.

According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on November 1, 2021 and it resolves to a parking page of the Registrar. The Complainant was however able to prove that one of its clients recently received an email, from a email address including the disputed domain name (i.e., [...]@primonial-group.com) and using the name and surname of an employee of the Complainant, aimed to propose investments within a phishing activity scheme.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name <primonial-group.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark PRIMONIAL, as the disputed domain name wholly contains the Complainant’s trademark with the addition of the term “group”.

Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since the Respondent has not been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name or to use its trademarks within the disputed domain name and the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, since the Complainant’s trademark PRIMONIAL is distinctive and internationally known. Therefore, the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and the Complainant contends that the use of the disputed domain name to send emails to the Complainant’s clients, pretending to be part of the group Primonial, proposing fake investments and using some real brochures of the Complainant, qualifies as bad faith registration and use.

B. Respondent

The Respondent has made no formal reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

A respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding under the Policy, but if it fails to do so, reasonable facts asserted by a complainant may be taken as true, and appropriate inferences, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, may be drawn (see, e.g., Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0441; Microsoft Corporation v. Freak Films Oy, WIPO Case No. D2003-0109; SSL INTERNATIONAL PLC v. MARK FREEMAN, WIPO Case No. D2000-1080; ALTAVISTA COMPANY v. GRANDTOTAL FINANCES LIMITED et. al., WIPO Case No. D2000-0848; and Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, Caisse Fédérale du Crédit Mutuel Nord Europe v. Marketing Total S.A., WIPO Case No. D2007-0288).

In this case, the Respondent submitted three informal email communications, two on November 16, 2021 and one on November 22, 2021, stating the following:

“I am not using them name for the same purpose i want to use primonial for other purposes” (November 16, 2021).

“By the way i use this domain not for real estate or primonial purpose PRIMONIAL is something that is first created or developed : primeval sense 1. b : existing in or persisting from the beginning (as of a solar system or universe) a primordial gas cloud and i want to create a blog about astro physic” (November 16, 2021).

“hi
i already respond that i am not using their brand name or logo or anything i just want to create a blog regard astro physic and primonial name sound good to me! If they want my name so lets go to the court and the judge will decide” (November 22, 2021).

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed:

(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 has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark PRIMONIAL both by registration and acquired reputation and that the disputed domain name <primonial-group.com> is confusingly similar to the trademark PRIMONIAL.

Regarding the addition of the term “group”, separated by a hyphen from the Complainant’s trademark, the Panel notes that it is now well established that the addition of terms or letters to a domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark (see, e.g., Aventis Pharma SA., Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Jonathan Valicenti, WIPO Case No. D2005-0037; Red Bull GmbH v. Chai Larbthanasub, WIPO Case No. D2003-0709; America Online, Inc. v. Dolphin@Heart, WIPO Case No. D2000-0713). The addition of the term “group”, separated by a hyphen, does not therefore prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8.

It is also well accepted that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), in this case “.com”, is ignored when assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has therefore met its burden of proving that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Respondent may establish a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name by demonstrating in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation:

“(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.”

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of proving the three elements of the Policy. However, satisfying the burden of proving a lack of the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name according to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is potentially quite difficult, since proving a negative circumstance is always more complicate than establishing a positive one.

As such, it is well accepted that it is sufficient for the Complainant to make a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to shift the burden of production on the Respondent. If the Respondent fails to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or on any other basis, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

The Complainant in its Complaint, and as set out above, has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It asserts that the Respondent, who is not currently associated with the Complainant in any way, is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is using it to send emails to the Complainant’s clients, pretending to be part of the group Primonial and proposing fake investments.

The prima facie case presented by the Complainant is enough to shift the burden of production to the Respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has failed to file a formal response in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, and has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie case. The Respondent has not presented any evidence of any rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain name, and the Panel is unable to establish any such rights or legitimate interests on the basis of the evidence in front of it.

As set out above, in the informal email communications, the Respondent has stated that the disputed domain name was registered with the purpose to use it for a blog about astrophysics, since the meaning of PRIMONIAL is “something that is first created or developed : primeval sense 1. b : existing in or persisting from the beginning (as of a solar system or universe) a primordial gas cloud”.

The Panel notes that the Respondent, probably confusing the term “primonial” with the term “primordial”, is in any case not using the disputed domain name in relation to an active website, but instead the Respondent is using it within a phishing activity scheme.

According to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13:

“2.13.1 Panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent […].”

Moreover, the Panel finds that the composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation. See WIPO Overview 3.0., section 2.5.1.

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

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that “for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, 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 [the respondent has] registered or has 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 the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) that [the respondent has] 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 [the respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) that [the respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) that by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’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 respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location”.

Regarding the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name, the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark PRIMONIAL in the field of wealth management is clearly established and the Panel finds that the Respondent likely knew of the Complainant and deliberately registered the disputed domain name because it is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name is also used in bad faith since it consists of a case of phishing activity, as proved by the Complainant by producing a mail between the Respondent, using the email address “[...]@primonial-group.com” and pretending to be working for the Complainant, and one of the Complainant’s clients, in which email the Respondent proposes investments and uses some real brochures of the Complainant.

Furthermore, the Panel considers that the nature of the disputed domain name, which is almost identical to the Complainant’s trademark with the mere addition of the term “group”, a term used by the Complainant when doing business as “Primonial Group”, further supports a finding of bad faith. See, WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has presented evidence to satisfy its burden of proof with respect to the issue of whether the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied.

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 <primonial-group.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Edoardo Fano
Sole Panelist
Date: December 23, 2021