WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Natixis v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Admin tools, admin space llc

Case No. D2021-3063

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Natixis, France, represented by Inlex IP Expertise, France.

The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Admin tools, admin space llc, United States of America (“United States”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <natixiz.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 16, 2021. On September 17, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 17, 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 September 20, 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 amended Complaint on September 23, 2021.

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 September 30, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 20, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 21, 2021.

The Center appointed Nayiri Boghossian as the sole panelist in this matter on November 11, 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 in the field of corporate and financial services. The Complainant owns many trademark registrations for the trademark NATIXIS such as;

1. French trademark registration No. 3416315 registered on March 14, 2006;
2. International trademark registration No. 1071008 registered on April 21, 2010.

The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on September 8, 2021. The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant owns various trademark registrations for the trademark NATIXIS, which is used in connection with financial and banking services. The disputed domain name almost reproduces the Complainant’s trademark NATIXIS replacing the letter “s” with “z”, which renders it visually and phonetically highly similar. This is a case of typo squatting.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not authorized by the Complainant to use its trademark as part of the domain name nor is he affiliated with the Complainant. The disputed domain name does not resolve to a website. Internet research shows that the Respondent is not commonly known by “natixiz”.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name was registered with the intent to benefit from the Complainant’s trademark which is well-known in France and internationally. The use of a privacy service is an inference of bad faith. It is worth noting that a fake address was also used. An email service is attached to the disputed domain name which indicates that it is being used in order to generate profit. There is a high likelihood that the disputed domain name is being used for phishing particularly given the nature of the Complainant’s business. Lastly, the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant’s trademark.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant owns trademark registrations for the trademark NATIXIS. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established its ownership of the trademark NATIXIS.

The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademarks NATIXIS almost in its entirety. It simply replaces the letter “s” with the letter “z”. Adding the letter “z” does not eliminate confusing similarity as the disputed domain name remains highly visually and phonetically similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

The gTLD “.com” should typically be ignored when assessing confusing similarity as established by prior UDRP decisions.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant must make at least a prima facie showing that a respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such showing is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent. In the instant case, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant to use its trademark. Therefore, it is for the Respondent to prove that it has rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent has not been able to prove any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark for a number of reasons; 1. it is a well-known trademark. 2. It is a fanciful word with no dictionary meaning. 3. A simple Google search shows the Complainant’s trademark. Given the above, the Panel believes that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to trade off the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark. The use of a privacy shield is under the circumstances an indication of bad faith. Furthermore, an email service seems to be attached to the disputed domain name which indicates that the Respondent might have plans for phishing or for scams. Such conduct of using a domain name as an email address to attract Internet users for a commercial gain, would falls squarely within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. In addition, the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied 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 disputed domain name, <natixiz.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Nayiri Boghossian
Sole Panelist
Date: November 12, 2021