WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Veolia Environnement SA v. WhoisGuard Protected / Greg Tapper

Case No. D2020-0531

1. The Parties

Complainant is Veolia Environnement SA, France, represented by IP Twins S.A.S., France.

Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, Panama / Greg Tapper, United States of America (“United States”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <veolia-sa.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 4, 2020. On March 4, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 4, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on March 5, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 6, 2020.

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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 12, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 1, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on April 3, 2020.

The Center appointed Clive L. Elliott, Q.C. as the sole panelist in this matter on April 7, 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 the holding company of Veolia Group, with its registered office in Paris, France, but having a presence worldwide.

Veolia Group has three core businesses: water production, waste treatment and collection, and production of energy networks. It has been in existence for approximately 160 years and employs more than 171,000 people worldwide.

Complainant is actively involved in climate change and has launched various advertising campaigns over the past few years. Complainant is the owner of the following trade mark registrations (“Complainant’s Mark”):

Complainant owns and operates the domain name <veolia.com>, which reflects Complainant’s Mark, and which was registered on December 30, 2002.

According to the publicly available WhoIs, the Domain Name was registered on January 23, 2020, and resolves to a web parking page.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that the Domain Name has been registered in bad faith and has been used for a phishing attempt. Complainant states that it became aware of the Domain Name in January 2020, when two emails were sent purportedly from email addresses containing the word “veolia” and appearing to come from senior officers of Complainant. On January 27, 2020, Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to Respondent via email requesting the Domain Name be blocked so it could not be used in connection with other such phishing scams. A further reminder was sent to Respondent. However, Complainant states that no reply or acknowledgement has been received.

Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark as it reproduces the VEOLIA trade mark in its entirety with the addition of the element “-sa”, thereby creating a likelihood of confusion that could mislead Internet users into thinking that it is associated with Complainant.

Complainant claims that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Respondent has not been authorised to use and register Complainant’s Mark or any domain name incorporating said Mark. Nor is Respondent commonly known by the name “veolia”.

Complainant submits that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in bad faith. Complainant is well-known throughout the world and the two emails sent in a phishing attempt were sent to two different members of the Veolia Group. Complainant contends that Respondent’s reproduction of Complainant’s Mark in its entirety in the Domain Name proves that Respondent was aware of the existence of Complainant’s Mark.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established that it has rights in Complainant’s Mark and that Complainant’s Mark is a well-known trade mark in a number of countries in the world, in relation to water, waste and energy.

The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark, insofar as it reproduces Complainant's Mark in its entirety with the addition of the element "sa". The addition of “sa”, commonly used abbreviation of "Societe Anonyme" in French (limited liability company), does nothing to impart distinctiveness to the Domain Name and to separate it from Complainant’s Mark.

By registering the Domain Name, Respondent has created a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s Mark. Accordingly, the first element of the Policy is satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

There is nothing to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the name “veolia”, or is in some way affiliated with Complainant, or authorized or licensed to use Complainant’s Mark. Nor is there any basis to suggest that Respondent is entitled to seek registration of the Domain Name or to use Complainant’s Mark in its email addresses. In the absence of any explanation from Respondent as to why it might have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name, and given the long-standing and widespread use of Complainant’s Mark, the Panel infers that Respondent lacks such rights or legitimate interests.

Equally, the Panel concludes that Complainant has established, on the evidence, there is an absence of such rights or legitimate interests.

Accordingly, the second element of the Policy is satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Given the finding above regarding the lack of rights or legitimate interests and given, in addition, the well-known nature of Complainant’s Mark, Complainant has established a prima facie basis for alleging bad faith registration and use by Respondent. That being so, it is incumbent on Respondent to address the allegations raised by Complainant. It has chosen to remain silent. Based on the case file, the Panel is drawn to infer that Respondent used Complainant’s Mark as part of an attempted phishing exercise.

For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that Respondent was aware of the existence of Complainant's Mark and therefore registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith.

It follows that Complainant has established the third element of 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 Domain Name <veolia-sa.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Clive L. Elliott, Q.C.
Sole Panelist
Date: April 21, 2020