DECISION

 

ORANO SA v. ADRIEN DEBERGE / AREVA SA

Claim Number: FA2309002063336

PARTIES

Complainant is ORANO SA ("Complainant"), represented by Khaddyja Mbalo of CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden. Respondent is ADRIEN DEBERGE / AREVA SA ("Respondent"), France.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <sa-orano.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 26, 2023; Forum received payment on September 26, 2023.

 

On September 26, 2023, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <sa-orano.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement 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 September 27, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 17, 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@sa-orano.com. Also on September 27, 2023, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On October 18, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends as follows:

 

Complainant is a multinational nuclear fuel cycle company headquartered in Courbevoie, Paris, France. It offers nuclear fuel cycle products and services, from mining to dismantling, conversion, enrichment, recycling, logistics and engineering.

 

Complainant has rights ORANO based on its registrations of such mark with various federal trademark registrars.

 

The at-issue domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's ORANO mark as the domain name merely adds the term "sa," a common abbreviation for Complainant's business structure, to Complainant trademark mark.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Respondent uses the domain name to direct internet users to a parking page featuring links to thirds party websites for which it likely receives pay-per-click fees. Such use of the at-issue domain name is thus not a bona fide offering of goods or services that would give rise to rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. As such, the Respondent is not using the domain name to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services as allowed under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as allowed under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Respondent set up the domain name using Complainant's employees' details and has enabled email via an MX mailing record.

 

Respondent registered and is using the confusingly similar at-issue domain name in bad faith. It is not possible Respondent was unaware of Complainant's trademarks at the time it registered <sa-orano.com>. Respondent intentionally attempts to attract internet users to its domain name and website using the confusion it created between the domain name and Complainant's ORANO trademark. Respondent shows bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) as respondent uses the confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a website featuring links to third-party websites that create revenue for the respondent. Respondent has the ability to use the at-issue domain name for email and thus email related fraudulent activities. Additionally, Respondent employed a privacy service to hide its identity and has failed to respond to a cease-and-desist letter from Complainant. Respondent knew of Complainant's trademark and targeted such mark when it registered and used the at-issue domain name.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the ORANO trademark.

 

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 name after Complainant acquired rights in the ORANO trademark.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a pay-per-click webpage.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Any one of Complainant's bona fide trademark registrations worldwide for the ORANO trademark is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sep. 4, 2018) ("Complainant has rights in the GMAIL mark based upon its registration of the mark with numerous trademark agencies around the world.").

 

Respondent's <sa-orano.com> domain name contains Complainant's entire ORANO trademark, preceded by the suggestive term "sa" and an irrelevant hyphen, and with all followed by the ".com" top-level domain name. The differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish the <sa-orano.com> domain name from Complainant's ORANO mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <sa-orano.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ORANO trademark. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exist where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy.) ); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.").

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

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). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

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 legitimate 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 the at-issue domain name ultimately reveals the domain name's registrant as "ADRIEN DEBERGE" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known as <sa-orano.com>. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <sa-orano.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).

 

Respondent uses the confusingly similar <sa-orano.com> domain name to address a webpage displaying what appear to be pay-per-click links. Respondent's use of the confusingly similar domain name to host pay-per-click links indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4 (c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant's business).

 

Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and demonstrates Respondent's lack of rights and lack of legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

As discussed below without being exhaustive, there is evidence that leads the Panel to find that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to the Policy. 

 

First, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to direct internet users to a webpage page displaying pay-per-click links. Respondent's use of the domain name in this manner is disruptive to Complainant's business and capitalizes on the confusion that Respondent created between the domain name and Complainant's trademark. Respondent's use of <sa-orano.com> thus shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use of such domain name pursuant to Policy¶ 4(b)(iv). See Plain Green, LLC v. wenqiang tang, FA 1505001621656 (Forum July 1, 2015) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to feature generic third-party hyperlinks constituted bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also, Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company v. Kentech Company LTD, FA0501000406522 (Forum March 4, 2005) ("[T]he Panel infers that Respondent receives click- through fees for diverting Internet users to competing car rental services. Since Respondent is using a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, consumers searching for Complainant online who access Respondent's domain name may become confused as to Complainant's affiliation with the resulting website. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent's commercial use of the <carenterprise.com> constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).").

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ORANO mark when it registered <sa-orano.com> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's mark is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's ORANO trademark as well as from Respondent's inclusion of the term "sa," a reference to Complainant's business structure, in the at-issue domain name. Respondent's registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights in ORANO further shows Respondent's bad faith pursuant to 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 domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <sa-orano.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: October 18, 2023