The Complainant is Proceq AG., Switzerland, represented by Hepp Wenger Ryffel AG, Switzerland.
The Respondent is Ellen Bearden, proceqinc, United States of America (“United States”).
The disputed domain name <proceqinc.com> is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 8, 2020. On December 8, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 8, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response. Further to a clarification request submitted by the Center, on December 14, 2020 the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center a second verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that 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 30, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 19, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 5, 2021.
The Center appointed Fabrice Bircker as the sole panelist in this matter on February 19, 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 Complainant is notably active in the field of portable non-destructive testing equipment and related services.
It is part of Screening Eagle Technologies and operates its business under the brand PROCEQ.
This brand is protected worldwide through many trademark registrations, such as:
- International trademark registration No. 1550310 for PROCEQ in classes 9, 37, 38, and 42, registered on July 7, 2020, and protected in the European Union and in Germany;
- International trademark registration No. 618696 for PROCEQ in classes 9, 37, and 42, registered on May 9, 1994, and protected in the United Kingdom, Mexico, Viet Nam, Singapore, Norway, Japan, Australia, and in the European Union;
- Swiss trademark registration No. 2P-409971 for PROCEQ in class 9, filed on January 14, 1994 registered on May 9, 1994, and regularly renewed since then;
- United States trademark registration No. 1939237 for PROCEQ in classes 9 and 37, filed on March 23, 1994, registered on December 5, 1995, and regularly renewed since then.
Besides, the Complainant has a subsidiary in the United States named Proceq USA Inc.
The disputed domain name, <proceqinc.com>, was registered on July 10, 2020.
The disputed domain name does not currently resolve to any active website. However, according to the record of the case, the disputed domain name was used to send emails by which the Respondent, by deceitfully pretending being an employee of the Complainant’s United States subsidiary, has attempted to purchase goods from a third company by requesting a 30-day payment term after the invoice date.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark PROCEQ, as it fully reproduces said trademark by merely adding the descriptive element “inc” which is the abbreviation for “incorporation”.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name because it has not been authorized by the Complainant to use the PROCEQ trademark.
In addition, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is not used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services because it has been used for creating an email address for the purpose of impersonating the Complainant to perpetrate fraud and illegal activities (namely ordering goods in the name of the Complainant’s United States subsidiary and without intending to pay the vendor).
The Complainant contends that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to impersonate an employee of its United States subsidiary and to attempt to place order for goods.
The Complainant adds that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith because it has used it for fraudulent activities (namely, sending emails impersonating the Complainant intended to obtain the delivery of merchandises from third parties without paying them).
Therefore, the Complainant finds that given this scheme, it is impossible that the Respondent did not have the PROCEQ trademark in mind when it registered the disputed domain name. The Complainant also contends that using the disputed domain name for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark and for conducting fraudulent activities constitutes bad faith use.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that for obtaining the transfer or the cancellation of the disputed domain name, the Complainant must establish each of the following three elements:
(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.
Besides, paragraph 15(a) of the Rules provides that “[a] 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”.
Paragraphs 10(b) and 10(d) of the Rules also provide that “[i]n all cases, the Panel shall ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case” and that “[t]he Panel shall determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence”.
Besides, the Respondent’s failure to reply to the Complainant’s contentions does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant, although the Panel is entitled to draw appropriate inferences therefrom, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules (see section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)).
Taking the foregoing provisions into consideration the Panel finds as follows.
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must first establish rights in a trademark or service mark and secondly establish that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to its trademark.
Annex 7 to the Complaint shows trademark registrations for PROCEQ in the name of the Complainant, in particular those detailed in Section 4. above.
Besides, the disputed domain name, <proceqinc.com> consists in the reproduction of the PROCEQ trademark followed by the element “inc” and by the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.com”.
The element “inc” is the common abbreviation of the term “incorporation”. As a consequence, the presence of this element in the disputed domain name cannot dispel the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s mark. Indeed, there is a consensus view among UDRP panels 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 under the first element (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8; or Kabbage, Inc. v. Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2020-0140).
As far as the gTLD “.com” is concerned, it consists in a standard registration requirement, and may therefore be disregarded when determining identity or confusing similarity under the first element.
As a result of all the above, the Panel concludes that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are satisfied.
Under the Policy, a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue. Once such a prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1; or for instance Applied Materials, Inc. v. John Warren, WIPO Case No. D2020-0950).
In this case, the Respondent has not been authorized by the Complainant to register and to use the disputed domain name.
Besides, according to the record of the case, the disputed domain name was used to send emails by which the Respondent has impersonated an employee of the Complainant’s United States subsidiary to order goods in the name of the latter and more than likely without having the intent to further paying the vendor (in particular because it requested a payment term after the invoicing date).
Obviously, such use of the domain name, which is not refuted by the Respondent, does not amount to a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. On the contrary, such use is made with intent for commercial gain by misleadingly diverting the recipient of the fraudulent emails and may also tarnish the Complainant’s trademark. In this respect, panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (such as phishing or impersonation) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13; or Colas, Société Anonyme v. Concept Bale, WIPO Case No. D2020-2733).
At last, according to the WhoIs database the Respondent would be partly named “proceqinc”, what corresponds to the distinctive part of the disputed domain name.
However, given the use that has been done of the disputed domain name (namely, deceitfully impersonate an employee of the United States subsidiary of the Complainant), the Respondent cannot credibly and legitimately be considered commonly known by the disputed domain name.
In this case, everything conducts to consider that such a way to fill in the WhoIs database is part of the fraudulent scheme elaborated by the Respondent (to lure the recipients of the fraudulent emails, in the event where they would conduct a WhoIs search on the disputed domain name, to believe that it is held by the Complainant or an affiliate).
In view of all the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent has had an opportunity to rebut the Complainant’s contentions but has not done so.
Based on the above, the Panel can conclude that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and accordingly that the second element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied.
Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The circumstances deemed to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith listed at paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are non-exhaustive examples.
In the present case, the Panel finds that the Respondent was necessarily aware of the Complainant’s rights at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name, since it has been used to create an email address from which the Respondent sent emails purporting to be an employee of the United States subsidiary of the Complainant.
Besides, the Respondent by remaining silent in this procedure has not provided any reason why the disputed domain name was registered other than by reference to the Complainant.
In addition, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to send emails seeking to mislead recipients as to the identity of the sender for its own commercial gain.
Such conduct is deceptive, illegal, and made for commercial gain. Furthermore, previous UDRP panels have found such conduct as evidence of registration and use in bad faith (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4; or Royal Unibrew A/S v. Nikki Riegel, vvvv, WIPO Case No. D2020-3476).
At last, according to annex 2 of the Complaint the Respondent has attempted to conceal its identity by using a privacy service and has communicated false contact details to the Registrar (according to the WhoIs database the disputed domain name is registered in the name of an organization located in the United States and at the same time the country code provided for its phone number is the one of Nigeria; in addition the courier service which had to communicate the Written Notice to the Respondent has not been able to do so using the contact details mentioned in the WhoIs database). Given the totality of the facts, this is a further indicator of bad faith (See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.6).
As a conclusion of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
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, <proceqinc.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.
Fabrice Bircker
Sole Panelist
Date: March 5, 2021