WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

DPDgroup International Services GmbH & Co. KG. v. Domain Privacy Service FBO Registrant, The Endurance International Group, Inc. / Corinne Renaud, srnaud

Case No. D2021-1215

1. The Parties

The Complainant is DPDgroup International Services GmbH & Co. KG., Germany, represented by Fidal, France.

The Respondent is Domain Privacy Service FBO Registrant, The Endurance International Group, Inc., United States of America (“The First Respondent”) / Corinne Renaud, srnaud, France (“The Second Respondent”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <info-dpdnet.com> is registered with FastDomain, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 20, 2021. On April 20, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 20, 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 21, 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 21, 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 22, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 12, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 14, 2021.

The Center appointed Jane Lambert as the sole panelist in this matter on May 20, 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 operates an international parcel delivery service for packages weighing 30 kilograms or less. In 2020, it delivered 1,9 billion parcels for which it received revenues of EUR 11 billion. It has registered the initials “DPD” in upper or lower case simpliciter or in combination with a box device as a trade mark for various goods and/or services in a number of trade mark registries around the world, e.g. the International Trade Mark DPD registration No. 1217471, registered on March 28, 2014, and the European Union Trade Mark DPD (in stylised form) registration No. 012722427, registered on August 14, 2014.

The Second Respondent registered the disputed domain name in the name of the First Respondent, which operates a privacy service (hereinafter commonly referred to as “the Respondent”). According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name redirects to the home page of “Chronopost”, which is part of the Complainant’s business.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name on the following grounds:

- The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

- The Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

- The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In respect of the first ground, the Complainant says that the disputed domain name < info-dpdnet.com> is confusingly similar to the trade mark DPD. The word “info-dpdnet.com” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s registered marks. The addition of the words “info” and “net” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s DPD trade mark and such use in fact merely serves to heighten potential Internet user confusion with the Complainant’s domain names, website and the postal and delivery services that it offers through them. The disputed domain name <info-dpdnet.com> combining the Complainant’s trade mark in its entirety with an additional term is confusingly similar on a phonetical and conceptual stand point.

As for the second ground, the Complainant submits that the Respondent is not commonly known under the name <info-dpdnet.com> and is not offering a bona fide offer of products or services to the best of the Complainant’s knowledge or belief. Also to the best of the Complainant’s knowledge and belief, the Respondent does not make any use of a business name, which includes the sign DPD. It has no rights in any trade mark consisting of that sign. The Complainant has been monitoring its trade marks worldwide for many years and has never noticed any DPD trade mark in the name of the Respondent.

The Complainant has not authorized licensed, permitted or otherwise consent to the Respondent’s use of the trade mark DPD in the disputed domain name and has no relationship with the Respondent.

Although offered in support of the contention that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the submission that the Respondent is deliberately creating confusion with the Complainant’s business by using the Complainant’s identity, reproducing without any prior authorization the Complainant’s trade mark and taking ownership of the Complainant’s services evidences bad faith on the part of the Respondent. So, too, is the submission that “the Respondent has sought to confuse Internet users who arrive at its website into thinking that it is the Complainant’s website or is associated with it when this is not the case”.

In support of its contention that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith, the Complainant relies on the following facts and matters:

- Reproduction of the trade marks and the graphic layout of the Complainant;
- The use of the Complainant’s trade mark without the Complainant’s consent or other lawful excuse;
- Suspected identity theft and phishing.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

The agreement for the registration of the disputed domain name incorporates by reference the following sub-paragraph of the Policy:

“a. Applicable Disputes. You are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a ‘complainant’) asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that
(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In the administrative proceeding, the complainant must prove that each of these three elements are present.”

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds the first element to be present.

The disputed domain name incorporates the initials DPD in their entirety with the addition of the letters “info”. “net” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. The term “info” is an abbreviation for “information” and “net” is an abbreviation for “network”. As the Complainant operates a parcel distribution network an Internet user is likely to be misled into believing that the disputed domain name will lead to a site providing information about the Complainant’s network. Such Internet user’s confusion is likely to be confounded by the registration of the disputed domain name with the gTLD “.com”.

The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel finds the second element to be present.

Section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) provides the following guidance:

“While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of ‘proving a negative’, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.”

Paragraph 2(c) of the Policy lists a number of circumstances which if found by the Panel to be proved could demonstrate that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that any of those circumstances apply. On the contrary, the Complainant has produced evidence of its registration of the initials DPD in most if not all of the world’s trade mark registries. It follows that the Respondent would require its permission to carry on business or otherwise use those initials in business. The Complainant has also stated that it monitors its registrations so any use of those initials by the Respondent is likely to have come to its attention.

The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It follows that the burden of production on this element shifts to the Respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has had an ample opportunity to produce such evidence but has failed to take advantage of it.

The Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds the third element to be present.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists a number of circumstances which if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. One of those circumstances is by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.

The Panel has already founded the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. The Complainant has also adduced evidence that the Respondent has sought to confuse Internet users who arrive at its website into thinking that it is the Complainant’s website or is associated with it when this is not the case. It is unlikely that the Respondent would go to register and use the disputed domain name without expectation of commercial gain. The Complainant suggests that phishing might be the object of the exercise and the Respondent’s activities to date are not inconsistent with such objective.

The Panel takes account of other factors such as the use of a privacy service and the failure to adduce evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and concludes on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

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 <info-dpdnet.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Jane Lambert
Sole Panelist
Date: June 1, 2021