The Complainant is Man Group plc, United Kingdom, represented by Dehns, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Thomas Victoire, United Kingdom.
The disputed domain name <mansolutionsgroup.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 6, 2020. On May 6, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On May 7, 2020, 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 May 14, 2020, 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 May 19, 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 the Respondent of the Complaint and the proceedings commenced on May 21, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 10, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 17, 2020.
The Center appointed Michael D. Cover as the sole panelist in this matter on June 26, 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.
The Complainant is a substantial active investment management company and the predecessor in business of the Complainant had been founded in 1783 as a sugar cooperage and brokerage in London. Over time, the Complainant gradually diversified into financial services and has over 25 years experience of global investment management. The Complainant provides a range of investment funds for private and institutional clients. The Complainant has, as at March 31, 2020, over USD 100 billion under management. The Complainant and its subsidiaries provide financial services in many countries around the world, with offices in the United Kingdom, Ireland, the United States of America, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Hong Kong, China, Japan, and Australia.
The Complainant and its subsidiaries are the proprietors of a large number of registered trademarks, including United Kingdom trademark registration No. 2,547,917 M MAN (logo) and European Union trademark registration No. 1,046.727 M MAN (logo), registered in respect of financial and investment services as of September 17, 2010 and June 22, 2010 respectively. The Complainant and its subsidiaries are also the proprietors of similar trademark registrations around the world. Details of these trademark registrations are set out in Annex 4 and Annex 5 to the Complaint respectively.
The Complainant’s group of companies includes a company, Man Solutions Limited and an extract from the records of United Kingdom Companies House showing details of this company are set out in Annex 6 to the Complaint.
According to the WhoIs database of the Registrar, the Respondent is Thomas Victoire. The only available information is the Respondent contact details, which appear to reference both France and the United Kingdom.
The Disputed Domain Name was being used to resolve to a website offering financial and investment services under the names “MAN Solutions”, “Man Solutions Limited”, and “manSolutionsGroup”.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on December 9, 2019.
The Complainant submits that, as a result of the extensive and longstanding use of the trademark M MAN, the Complainant has acquired significant goodwill and worldwide reputation in connection with this trademark in the field of financial and investment services. The Complainant submits that it is the owner of both significant unregistered and registered rights in the mark M MAN.
The Complainant notes that the Disputed Domain Name comprises the dominant element “man”, in combination with generic/descriptive elements. The Complainant refers the Panel to two previous decisions of WIPO Administrative Panels, which are set out in Annex 7 to the Complaint. These are WIPO Case No. D2015-1010 Citrix Systems, Inc. v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Media Tapestry in which the Panel held that the element “solutions” was a descriptive term. The Complainant also refers the Panel to WIPO Case No. D2018-2915 Renault SAS v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1243618345 / Alonso, in which the Administrative Panel held that the term “group” is merely descriptive to designate an economic or legal entity formed of parent and affiliated companies and that its inclusion in a disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between a complainant’s trademark and a disputed domain name.
The Complainant also notes that, with regard to the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, it is well-established that this is to be ignored for the purpose of assessing confusing similarity and submits that, as the gTLD is non-distinctive, the presence of this element in the Disputed Domain Name is not sufficient to render the Disputed Domain Name dissimilar to the Complainant’s name and trademark. The Complainant notes that the phrase “Man Solutions” is identical to the dominant portions of the registered company names of the Complainant’s wholly-owned indirect subsidiaries, Man Solutions Limited, Man Solutions (USA) LLC, and Man Solutions SLP LLC.
The Complainant concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly-similar to the Complainant’s trade mark and forms the dominant element of the Disputed Domain Name, that the Complainant’s trade mark M Man has a significant global reputation, and the Respondent had no reasonable justification for having registered the Disputed Domain Name.
The Complainant notes that the Respondent is operating a website at the Disputed Domain Name that is directed at French consumers and offers investment opportunities under the names “MAN Solutions”, “Man Solutions Limited”, and “manSolutionsGroup”, and submits that the services offered by the Respondent are identical to those offered by the Complainant and that the Respondent is using a name which is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has significant unregistered and registered rights.
The Complainant also states that the Respondent’s website makes reference to the Complainant’s wholly-owned indirect subsidiary Man Solutions Limited and submits that this is in a manner which would mislead consumers into thinking that the Respondent is, or is related or connected to, Man Solutions Limited, when this is not the case. The Complainant also states that the website linked to the Disputed Domain Name references the Complainant’s head office in London as its registered address.
The Complainant submits that the use that is being made of the Disputed Domain Name is not bona fide or legitimate commercial use and that, instead, the Disputed Domain Name is being used with the intention of deceiving consumers for fraudulent purposes and to enable the Respondent to misrepresent itself as the Complainant and/or its wholly-owned indirect subsidiary company.
The Complainant concludes there is no evidence that: (a) before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent had made use of or demonstrable preparations to use a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services; (b) the Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name; or (c) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name without intent for commercial gain misleadingly to divert consumers or to tarnish the Complainant’s name.
The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant states that it first became aware of the Disputed Domain Name on March 10, 2020 and that this was as a result of an alert from The French Financial Markets Authority (“AMF”), which had become aware of the website operated by the Respondent and suspected it of offering investments services to French consumers without the necessary regulatory authorisations. The AMF suspected, continues the Complainant, that the Respondent was misusing the Complainant’s name and address for fraudulent purposes and sought the Complainant’s confirmation in that respect. This led, says the Complainant, to the Complainant informing the AMF that the Respondent’s website was indeed fraudulent and to the AMF issuing a public warning in connection with the Disputed Domain Name and placing it on its blacklist, as shown in Annex 9 to the Complainant. The Complainant states that that the Complainant is taking steps to have the website of the Respondent taken down by the concerned registrar.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to misrepresent itself as being related to the Complainant or its Man Solutions Limited subsidiary.
The Complainant concludes that the Disputed Domain Name: (a) was registered in a manner which, at the time the Disputed Domain Name was registered, took unfair advantage of the Complainant’s rights; (b) is being used in a manner which takes unfair advantage of and infringes the Complainant’s rights; (c) was registered for unfairly disrupting the business of the Complainant; and (d) is being used by the Respondent in a manner which intentionally attracts, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks.
The Complainant requests that the Panel order that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
The Complainant must demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, and that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has established registered rights in its M MAN trademark. Extensive use has been made of the M MAN name and trademark in relation to financial services over the last 25 years and, in fact, for the original services offered by the predecessors in business of the Complainant, back into the late 18th century. The Panel accepts the submission of the Complainant that, as a result, the Complainant has also established unregistered rights in the name and trademark M MAN. The Panel also accepts that the Complainant has demonstrated a global reputation in its M MAN trademark, and hence that trademark has become a well-known trademark.
The Panel also accepts that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, in which the Complainant has rights. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the main element of Complainant’s well-known trademark M MAN.
In addition, it is well-established that that the addition of the gTLD “.com” does not avoid a finding that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark and the Panel also accepts the submission of the Complainant that the inclusion of the word “solutions” in the Disputed Domain Name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, nor the addition of the dictionary term “group”.
The Panel accordingly finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark M MAN, in which the Complainant has rights, and that the provisions of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been met.
The Panel accepts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. There is no evidence in the Complaint to indicate that the Complainant has licensed or authorized the Respondent to use its M MAN name or trademark, nor that the Disputed Domain Name has been used for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial fair use. The Panel decides that the burden of production then passes to the Respondent, the Complainant having made out a prima facie case. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1.
The Respondent has failed to satisfy this burden, by choosing not to respond, despite having been given the opportunity so to do. The Respondent has not demonstrated use or demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, that it has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, nor that it has been making legitimate noncommercial use of the Disputed Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain or to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the M Man trademark of the Complainant.
In addition, the Panel accepts that the use of the Disputed Domain Name that has taken place was not bona fide or legitimate commercial use and that, instead, the Disputed Domain Name is being used with the intention of deceiving consumers for fraudulent purposes and to enable the Respondent to misrepresent itself as the Complainant and/or its wholly-owned indirect subsidiary company, as submitted by the Complainant.
The Panel therefore accordingly finds that the provisions of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy have been met.
The non-exhaustive list of evidence of registration and use in bad faith in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy includes, inter alia: (iii) that the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; and (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.
The Panel finds that both the above circumstances have been established here by the Complainant. The Panel finds that the Complainant’s trademark M MAN is well-known, and the Respondent likely had the Complaint’s trademark in mind when registering the Disputed Domain Name. In addition, the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name to provide competing services fraudulently impersonating the Complainant both disrupts the Complainant’s business and attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. This finding is also supported, in this case, by the failure of the Respondent to submit a Response, and hence provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use. The Disputed Domain Name has therefore been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel therefore finds that the provisions of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy have been met.
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 <mansolutionsgroup.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Michael D. Cover
Sole Panelist
Date: July 8, 2020