WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

AXA SA v. Ghita Zuoine

Case No. D2020-3374

1. The Parties

The Complainant is AXA SA, France, represented by Selarl Candé - Blanchard - Ducamp, France.

The Respondent is Ghita Zuoine, France.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <connectaxa.com> is registered with One.com A/S (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 11, 2020. On December 11, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 14, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its 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 15, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 4, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 5, 2021.

The Center appointed Isabelle Leroux as the sole panelist in this matter on January 27, 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is the holding company of the AXA Group, a worldwide company in the sector of insurance, saving and asset management doing business in 57 countries around the world, whose business name “Axa” has been introduced in 1985.

The Complainant owns a portfolio of registered trademarks consisting of the sign “AXA”, including, inter alia, the following registrations:

- International trademark AXA, No. 490030, registered on December 5, 1984, and duly renewed, designating services in classes 35, 36 and 39;
- United States of America figurative trademark AXA No. 2072157, applied for on August 5, 1994, registered on June 17, 1997, and duly renewed, designating services in class 36;
- European Union figurative Trade Mark AXA, No. 000373894, applied for on August 28, 1996, registered on July 29, 1998, and duly renewed, designating services in classes 35 and 36;
- European Union word Trade Mark AXA, No. 008772766, applied for on December 21, 2009, registered on September 7, 2012, in classes 35 and 36;
- French word trademark AXA, No. 1270658, applied for on January 10, 1984 and duly renewed, designating services in classes 35, 36 and 42 (together referred as the “Trademarks”).

The Complainant also registered the following domain names:

- <axa.com> registered on October 23, 1995;
- <axa.net> registered on November 01, 1997;
- <axa.info> registered on July 30, 2001;
- <axa.fr> registered on May 20, 1996 (Annex 17).

The disputed domain name was registered on April 1, 2020. The WhoIs of the Registrar shows that the registrant information is “Redacted for privacy”. Upon request of the Center, the Registrar has confirmed that the registrant is an individual located in France.

The disputed domain name used to resolve to a safety warning notice of Microsoft Defender SmartScreen indicating “the website has been reported as not safe”. It is currently inactive.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

(i) The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademarks, as it incorporates the famous Trademarks and the distinctive sign “AXA” in their entirety. The Complainant also supports that the addition of the word “connect” is not sufficient to prevent the public from being confused. On the contrary, the association with such term will only induce the Internet users to believe that the disputed domain name is another official website of the Complainant, as it makes, without doubt, reference to the Complainant’s websites that allow the clients to log in to their personal accounts.

(ii) Secondly, the Complainant indicates that it has never given any license or authorization to the Respondent to use its Trademarks or to register the disputed domain name. Moreover, there is no relationship whatsoever between the parties.

The Complainant further contends that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name insofar as it is not commonly known by such name and was making illegal use of the disputed domain name by conducting phishing schemes. According to the Complainant, its teams have detected the disputed domain name for having fraudulently copied its connection service website at “www.connect.axa.fr” and for having conducted phishing attacks and connecting to its Information Technology infrastructure and bypassing dual identification system in order to mislead its clients and to transfer money away. However, no evidence was submitted by the Complainant to support this contention.

(iii) Thirdly, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, as the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s Trademarks at the time of the registration, given the well-known character of the Trademarks.

Finally the association of the term with the Trademarks demonstrates, according to the Complainant, a use in bad faith in order to confuse Internet users. The Complainant adds that the phishing schemes on the website associated with the disputed domain name constitute further proofs of bad faith use.

(iv) The Complainant therefore requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove each of the following elements in order to obtain relief:

(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.

These elements will be examined in turn below.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name incorporates entirely the AXA Trademark which is typically considered sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the first element. In particular, the term “axa” does not have any particular meaning.

The addition of the descriptive term “connect” associated with the Trademarks does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity.

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Numerous UDRP panels have found that, even though the Complainant bears the general burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent once the Complainant makes a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests (see Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).

Hence after the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, it will be deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP when the Respondent fails to submit a response.

In this case, the Complainant brings forward the following elements:

- No license or authorization has been granted by the Complainant to the Respondent;
- It has no relationship whatsoever with the Respondent;
- There is no indication that the Respondent is known under the disputed domain names.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Respondent has not proved otherwise.

Given these circumstances, the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy has been satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

First of all, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name was registered long after the registration of the AXA Trademarks that have furthermore been recognized as well known in previous UDRP decisions (see AXA SA v. Frank Van, WIPO Case No. D2014-0863; AXA SA v. Richard Lim, WIPO Case No. D2020-0749).

Accordingly, the Panel considers that the Respondent who appears to be an individual located in France, the country where the Complainant was founded, has its headquarter and operates its business, could not plausibly ignore the existence of the Complainant’s Trademarks at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name.

Further, the Panel notes that the term “connect” refers to the services of the Complainant to its clients, in particular, the service of connecting to the website or user accounts of AXA.

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.

As to the use of the disputed domain name, the Complainant has provided evidence that the disputed domain name used to resolve to a website with potential security risks, according to Microsoft Defender SmartScreen’s safety warning notice. However, it did not provide any evidence to support that the disputed domain name would have been used to conduct phishing attacks by copying its connection website “www.connect.axa.fr”, although it cannot be denied that the similarity between the disputed domain name and the address of such website would be misleading for the Complainant’s clients.

The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name currently appears to be inactive.

In instances where there is no apparent active use of a domain name, UDRP panels will apply the passive holding doctrine by taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances of a specific case, as outlined in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.

In the present case, the Panel finds that the non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith, in particular given the following factors:

- the high distinctiveness and the worldwide reputation of the Complainant's prior Trademarks;
- the failure of the Respondent to submit a response;
- the Respondent’s concealing its identity (the contact email address provided by the Respondent to the Registrar is undeliverable according to the mail delivery system’s notice);
- the Microsoft Defender SmartScreen’s safety warning notice that further strengthens the probability of a fraudulent use of the disputed domain name.

Taking into account all of the above, it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith, so that the third and final element of the Policy is met.

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 disputed domain name <connectaxa.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Isabelle Leroux
Sole Panelist
Date: February 10, 2021