The Complainants are The PwC Business Trust and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (collectively, the “Complainant”), United States of America (“United States”), represented by Arent Fox LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Franck Profirst, United States.
The disputed domain name <pwc-amf.com> is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu. (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 7, 2021. On April 8, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 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 April 15, 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 April 18, 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 April 23, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 13, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 14, 2021.
The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on May 25, 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 PwC Business Trust owns the rights in and to a number of marks comprised of the letters PWC, and has granted licenses to those marks to the Complainant PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. These marks include PWC (Stylized), which is the subject of United States Reg. No. 2,579,070, registered June 11, 2002. The Complainant provides a range of financial and regulatory assurance services, together with tax, advisory and other consultant services.
The disputed domain name was registered on December 12, 2020. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name has been used as part of a fraudulent phishing scheme designed to obtain redirection of payment or confidential information from the Complainants’ vendors. As part of this scheme, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to pose as an attorney for the Complainant and to send fake email messages.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(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.
The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case.
The Complainant clearly has rights in the mark PWC, evidenced by the registration certificates for that mark. The disputed domain name, for purposes of this first element, is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark as it is recognizable in the disputed domain name.
Moreover, the Respondent used the disputed domain name specifically to generate fraudulent emails, suggesting that the Respondent relied on user confusion to accomplish its nefarious purposes. This evidence of intent to confuse on the part of the Respondent reinforces the conclusion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. See, Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Admin, Domain, WIPO Case No. D2016-2342.
Accordingly, the Complainant has succeeded under this first element of the Policy.
The Panel evaluates this element of the Policy by first looking to see whether the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests shifts to the Respondent.
The Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. By failing to respond to the Complaint, the Respondent did not overcome its burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests, and no other facts in the record tip the balance in the Respondent’s favor.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy instructs respondents on a number of ways they could demonstrate rights or legitimate interests (“you” and “your” in the following refers to the particular respondent):
(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.
In this case, the principal indicator of the lack of rights or legitimate interests comes from the alleged fraudulent nature of the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to generate phishing emails. See Syngenta Participations AG v. Guillaume Texier, Gobain Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2017-1147 (registrant cannot acquire rights or legitimate interests by the use of a domain name as an email address from which to send phishing emails).
Accordingly, the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in regard to the disputed domain name.
The Complainant has provided evidence that the disputed domain name was used for fraudulent activity (sending phishing email messages). On the uncontroverted evidence before this Panel, the disputed domain name was used to contact one or more vendors of the Complainant. In an attempt to mislead the recipient into thinking that the email was legitimate, the sender of the email posed as an attorney for the Complainant. This Panel finds that on the balance of probabilities the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith for the purposes of unlawful phishing activity.
The Complainant has therefore also succeeded in satisfying this third and final element 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 <pwc-amf.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Evan D. Brown
Sole Panelist
Date: June 8, 2021