ORANO SA v. [Name redacted] / AREVA SA
Claim Number: FA2304002039060
Complainant is ORANO SA (“Complainant”), represented by Khaddyja Mbalo of CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden. Respondent is [Name redacted] / AREVA SA (“Respondent”), France.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <orano-sa.com>, registered with One.com A/S.
PANEL
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.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 6, 2023. Forum received payment on April 6, 2023.
On April 9, 2023, One.com A/S confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <orano-sa.com> domain name is registered with One.com A/S and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. One.com A/S has verified that Respondent is bound by the One.com A/S registration agreement, which is in French, and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On April 12, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a French and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 2, 2023 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@orano-sa.com. Also on April 12, 2023, the French and English 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 9, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS
As noted, the One.com A/S registration agreement is in French. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the language of the proceeding in relation to the <orano-sa.com> domain name shall be French unless otherwise determined by the Panel, having regard to the circumstances of the proceeding.
Complainant requests that the proceeding be conducted in English, noting that the <orano-sa.com> domain name has been used to send an email in the English language purporting to be from an employee of Complainant. In the absence of any Response, these circumstances satisfy the Panel that Respondent is likely to be proficient in English and that there would be no undue prejudice to Respondent if English were the language of the proceeding.
Further, pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the French and English language Written Notice of the Complaint and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: IDENTITY THEFT
Complainant submits that the WHOIS information listed for the domain name is false because the person named as Respondent in this case is an employee of Complainant who did not register the domain name. Complainant requests the Panel to redact the name of the employee from its public decision.
Complainant exhibits an email message to a business associate of Complainant in which Respondent impersonates Complainant’s employee.
According to Policy paragraph 4(j), “[a]ll decisions under this Policy will be published in full over the Internet, except when an Administrative Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its decision.” In Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellzfargo.com>, FA 362108 (Forum Dec. 30, 2004) and Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellsfargossl>, FA 453727 (Forum May 19, 2005) the panels omitted the respondents’ personal information from the decisions, pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(j), in an attempt to protect the respondents who claimed to be victims of identity theft.
The Panel is satisfied from the conduct of Respondent AREVA SA that [name redacted] had nothing to do with the registration of the domain name and that Respondent AREVA SA registered the <orano-sa.com> domain name in the name of [name redacted] without the knowledge or authorization of [name redacted]. This constitutes identity theft.
Accordingly, pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(j), the Panel determines it appropriate in the circumstances of this case that the name of the person listed in the WHOIS registration information in relation to the <orano-sa.com> domain name at the time of commencement of this proceeding (i.e. the Respondent, as defined in Rule 1) be redacted.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a major player in nuclear fuel cycle products and services, from mining to dismantling, conversion, enrichment, recycling, logistics and engineering. Complainant has rights in the ORANO mark through registrations of the mark with multiple international agencies. Respondent’s <orano-sa.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ORANO mark.
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <orano-sa.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use its ORANO mark. Respondent has not used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as Respondent passes itself off as Complainant on its former website by using Complainant’s mark and logo and by creating an email address impersonating Complainant’s employee to phish for information. Respondent is presently using the domain name to resolve to a blank webpage that lacks content.
Respondent registered the <orano-sa.com> domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights to the ORANO mark and uses it in bad faith to disrupt Complainant’s business by passing itself off as Complainant in a phishing scheme. The domain name currently resolves to an inactive website. Finally, Respondent ignored Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.
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 and 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 shown that it has rights in the ORANO mark through registrations of the mark with multiple international agencies, including WIPO International Registration No. 1399209, registered on December 4, 2017. The Panel finds Respondent’s <orano-sa.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s ORANO mark as it merely adds a hyphen and the generic term “sa” (an abbreviation of Société Anonyme) and the inconsequential “.com” generic top-level-domain name ("gTLD"), which may be ignored.
Complainant has established this element.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The <orano-sa.com> domain name was registered on February 23, 2023, many years after Complainant registered its ORANO mark. Prior to Complainant’s representatives requesting takedown, the domain name resolved to a website featuring Complainant’s ORANO mark and logo. It currently resolves to a blank page. On March 15, 2023 an email purporting to be from [name redacted]@orano-sa.com was sent to a business associate of Complainant in an attempt to ‘phish’ for sensitive information. The email contained Complainant’s actual address and telephone number as part of the email signature.
These circumstances, together with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <orano-sa.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
Complainant has established this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The four illustrative circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy as evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) are not exclusive.
The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant’s ORANO mark when Respondent registered the <orano-sa.com> domain name and that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith for the purpose of phishing for information by masquerading as a representative of Complainant.
Complainant has established this element.
DECISION
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <orano-sa.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: May 10, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page