Veolia Environnement SA v. Adele Pask
Claim Number: FA2203001989509
Complainant is Veolia Environnement SA (“Complainant”), represented by IP TWINS, France. Respondent is Adele Pask (“Respondent”), Georgia, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <veolianorthamerica.us>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 24, 2022; the Forum received payment on March 24, 2022.
On March 25, 2022, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <veolianorthamerica.us> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with U.S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On March 25, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 14, 2022 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@veolianorthamerica.us. Also on March 25, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 19, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules to the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”). Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the usTLD Policy, usTLD Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant helps cities and industries to manage and optimize their resources.
Complainant has rights in the VEOLIA mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <veolianorthamerica.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VEOLIA mark. Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the term “north America” along with the “.us” country-code top-level domain (“ccTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <veolianorthamerica.us> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use the VEOLIA mark in any way.
Respondent registered and used the <veolianorthamerica.us> domain name in bad faith as Respondent makes use of the VEOLIA mark in order to confuse internet users that some sort of affiliation exists. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the VEOLIA mark due to the longstanding use and fame of the mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the VEOLIA mark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain names after Complainant acquired rights in the VEOLIA.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Complainant has rights in a mark that is confusingly similar to the at-issue domain name.
Complainant shows that it has a USPTO registration for its VEOLIA mark. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish Complainant’s rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <veolianorthamerica.us> domain name contains Complainant’s entire VEOLIA trademark followed by the geographic term “north America” with all followed by the domain name’s “.us” top-level. The differences between Respondent’s at-issue domain name and Complainant’s mark are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds <veolianorthamerica.us> to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s VEOLIA trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Franklin Covey Co. v. franklincoveykorea, FA 1774660 (Forum Apr. 11, 2018) (finding that the <franklincoveykorea.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the FRANKLIN COVEY mark, as “[t]he addition of a geographic term and a gTLD do not negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
The WHOIS information for <veolianorthamerica.us> identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Adele Pask” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence showing that Respondent is commonly known by the <veolianorthamerica.us> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by <veolianorthamerica.us> for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 2011001919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) (“Here, the WHOIS information lists “er nong wu” as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”)
Respondent uses <veolianorthamerica.us> to facilitate a phishing scheme whereby Respondent passes itself off as an employee of Complainant via email from the at-issue domain name. Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name in this manner indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv). see also Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018) (“On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present from which the Panel concludes that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Respondent uses its confusingly similar <veolianorthamerica.us> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant via email in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Using the confusingly similar domain name in such a manner demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails supported a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). Since Respondent’s scheme depends on its use of <veolianorthamerica.us> to confound third parties into falsely believing that there is a relationship between Complainant and the <veolianorthamerica.us> domain name, Respondent has acted in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See BBY Solutions, Inc. v. Grant Ritzwoller, FA 1703389 (Forum Dec. 21, 2016) (finding bad faith because the <bestbuyus.com> domain name was obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known BEST BUY mark, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain).
Moreover, Respondent registered <veolianorthamerica.us> knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in VEOLIA and thus in <veolianorthamerica.us>. Respondent’s actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in <veolianorthamerica.us> is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark as well as from Respondent’s use of the domain name to pass itself off as one of Complainant’s employees via email. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's VEOLIA trademark further indicates Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed the disputed domain name”).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <veolianorthamerica.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: April 22, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page