À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Securitas AB v. Davina Rodrigues / Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org

Case No. D2016-0890

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Securitas AB of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Davina Rodrigues of Valencia, Spain / Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org of Nobby Beach, Queensland, Australia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <centralsecuritas.com> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on May 3, 2016. On May 3, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 4, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response 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 11, 2016 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 12, 2016.

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 20, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 9, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on June 10, 2016.

The Center appointed Marilena Comanescu as the sole panelist in this matter on June 16, 2016. 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 language of the proceeding is English.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a company founded in 1972 with headquarters in Sweden, which currently employs 330,000 people in 53 countries worldwide and provides specialized guarding and mobile services, monitoring, technical solutions and consulting and investigations.

The Complainant is the owner of the trademark SECURITAS, alone and combined with other elements, protected in many countries worldwide, such as the following:

- the International Trademark Registration No. 883424 for the word mark SECURITAS registered since October 31, 2005 covering goods and services in classes 6, 9, 14, 35, 36, 37, 39, 41, 42, 45 with protection in many countries, including in Australia; and

- the European Union Trademark No. 000603811 for the word mark SECURITAS filed on July 25, 1997 and registered on October 29, 2001 covering goods and services in classes 1, 6, 9, 16, 18, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42.1

The Complainant operates its main website at "www.securitas.com".

The disputed domain name <centralsecuritas.com> was registered on July 1, 2015 and at the time of filing the Complaint, it was used to redirect Internet users to the Complainant's official website.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known trademark SECURITAS as it incorporates it in entirety together with the generic term "central"; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

In view of the Respondent's default, the discussion and findings will be based upon the contentions in the Complaint and any reasonable position that can be attributable to the Respondent. Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant can only succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy if the following circumstances are met:

(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 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 Complainant holds worldwide trademark registrations for the SECURITAS trademark. The disputed domain name includes the Complainant's trademark preceded by the generic non-distinctive term "central".

Adding a generic term is not sufficient to escape a finding of confusing similarity and does not change the overall impression of the disputed domain name as being connected to the Complainant's trademark. See paragraph 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0").

Further, it is well established in decisions under the UDRP that the presence or absence of spaces, characters (e.g., hyphens, dots) in a domain name and indicators for generic Top-Level domains (e.g., ".com", ".biz", ".net", ".org") are typically irrelevant to the consideration of confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name.

Given the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name <centralsecuritas.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark SECURITAS, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant asserts that it has given no license or other right to use or register its trademark to the Respondent, that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or a bona fide offering of goods and services. In line with previous UDRP decisions, the Panel accepts that the Complainant has provided a prima facie case of the Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests in relation to the disputed domain name, and the burden of production shifts to the Respondent.

The Respondent chose not to challenge the Complainant's allegations. There is no evidence before the Panel to support the contrary, and therefore the Panel accepts these arguments as facts. See also, RX America, LLC. v. Matthew Smith, WIPO Case No. D2005-0540; and Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, WIPO Case No. D2000-1398.

Further, according to the evidence provided in the Complaint, the disputed domain name is currently redirected to the Complainant's website. However, this fact confirms the Respondent's awareness of the Complainant's trademark and such use made without the authorization and control of the Complainant does not constitute a legitimate noncommercial or a bona fide use. See also, C. Crane Company Inc. v. Robbie Crossley, WIPO Case No. D2009-0815; and Statoil ASA v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / John Brendon, WIPO Case No. D2013-1074.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii).

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant holds trademark registrations for SECURITAS worldwide since at least in 1997, including in Australia and Spain, where the Respondent and the privacy service are apparently located. The Complainant has provided evidence that it has a significant reputation in the use of the SECURITAS mark worldwide in its business field.

The disputed domain name was created in 2015 and incorporates the Complainant's trademark together with a generic term, "central".

At the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name was diverted to the Complainant's official website. This Panel agrees with the majority of the UDRP Panels that such use or nonuse of a disputed domain name is a conclusive evidence of bad faith registration and use of that name. See, CSC Holdings, Inc. v. cablevision-lightpath.com Inc., WIPO Case No. D2004-1057 ("The Panel finds that the Respondent was simply trying to avoid the appearance of bad faith when the domain name at issue automatically redirected to Complainant's website, "www.lightpath.net". If ownership of the domain name at issue remains with the Respondent, it can obviously be re-directed to another website of Respondent's choosing. The Panel cannot conclude that bad faith is not present simply because no measurable harm has yet been done."); De Beers UK Limited v. Scott van Iperen, 14088959380, WIPO Case No. D2016-0167; and Statoil ASA v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / John Brendon, supra.

Further, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name using a privacy shield, did not provide accurate contact details in the WhoIs database and did not respond to the Complaint and to the Complainant's Cease and Desist letter sent before commencing these procedures. Given the other circumstances of the case, such behavior may be considered as further evidence of bad faith in registering and using the disputed domain name.

For the above, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, pursuant to 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 <centralsecuritas.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Marilena Comanescu
Sole Panelist
Date: June 28, 2016

1 As to the legitimacy of the Panel performing individual searches, see paragraph 4.5 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/fr/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/news/fr/