About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

AXA SA v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Ahmed Osei

Case No. D2020-1297

1. The Parties

The Complainant is AXA SA, France, represented by Cande Blanchard Ducamp Avocats, France.

The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Ahmed Osei, Ghana.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <axabanquefr.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 May 22, 2020. On May 22, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On May 22, 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 the Complainant on June 9, 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 amendment to the Complaint on June 10, 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 June 11, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 1, 2020. The Respondent has not filed a formal Response, but sent short informal communications on June 16 and 17, 2020 to the Center.

The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on July 13, 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

The Complainant is a global company in insurance, saving and asset management, serving 108 million customers, and employing 160,000 people worldwide. The trade name AXA was introduced in 1985. AXA is listed on the Paris Stock Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange.

The Complainant owns trademark registrations for AXA, AXA BANK, and AXA BANQUE, such as United States Trademark No. 2072157 registered on June 17, 1997, International Trademark No. 490030 registered on December 5, 1984, and European Union Trademark no. 373 894 registered on July 29, 1998.

The Complainant owns and operates different domain names such as “axa.com”, “axabank.com”, “axabank.be” and “axabanque.fr”.

The Domain Name was registered on March 17, 2020.

At the time of the Complaint, and at the time of drafting the decision, the Domain Name resolved to an error page.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant has documented trademark registrations. According to the Complainant, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, as it fully reproduces the Complainant’s AXA trademark, with the addition of the word “banque” and the initials “fr”. The Complainant does not believe the additions are sufficient to prevent the public from being confused.

The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, as there is no relationship whatsoever between the involved parties. To the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent does not own any rights in any trademarks, which comprise part or the entirety of the Domain Name, nor is the Respondent commonly known under this name. Moreover, the Complainant has not given any permission to use AXA to the Respondent, and the Respondent is not using the Domain Name in relation to a bona fide offering of goods. On the contrary, the Respondent is using the Domain Name for phishing purposes, targeting the customers of AXA.

Finally, the Complainant submits that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademarks at the time that he registered the Domain Name. The bad faith is further evidenced by the fact that the Respondent chose to register the Domain Name via a privacy proxy registration service. Moreover, the Respondent has used the Domain Name for phishing purposes by creating a confusion in order to divert the Complainant's customers. The Complainant has received complaints and emails regarding the use of the Domain Name for phishing emails. The Respondent also seems to have engaged in a pattern of trademark-abusive domain name registrations. A reverse Whois database search disclosed that the Respondent’s email address has been used to register several domains corresponding to third parties’ trademark, including a trademark for banking services.

B. Respondent

The Respondent has not filed a formal response to the Complainant’s contentions. As mentioned above, the Center received two email communications from the Respondent, including a short email on June 16, 2020 stating: “I bought the domain axabanquefr.com to resell it but I couldn’t even resell it, it got locked out so if that person want it he can take it back if only they will give it to that person. Please let me know if there is nothing I can do”.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established rights in the trademark AXA. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. The Domain Name fully reproduces the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, with the addition of the terms “banque” and “fr”. The additions do not prevent confusing similarity. For the purposes of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”.

The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

There is no evidence suggesting that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complainant has not given any permission to use AXA to the Respondent, and the Respondent is not using the Domain Name in relation to a bona fide offering of goods. The Respondent seems to be using the Domain Name for phishing purposes.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Based on the evidence, the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademark and its business when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the AXA trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. The Respondent chose to register the Domain Name via a privacy proxy registration service. The Respondent has not answered to the Complainant’s contentions. There is evidence that the Registrar deactivated the website of the Respondent in response to notification by the Complainant of complaints and emails received by the Complainant regarding the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name for phishing purposes. There is also evidence of the Respondent’s email being used to register domain names confusingly similar to third party trademarks.

The Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of the paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 <axabanquefr.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: July 20, 2020

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