Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainants to prove each of the following three elements to obtain the transfer or the cancellation of the domain name:
(1) the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights; and
(2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(3) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
1. THE COMPLAINANTS’ RIGHTS AND CONFUSING SIMILARITY OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME TO THE COMPLAINANTS' MARK
The Complainants have provided sufficient documentary evidences to demonstrate to be owner of the EURIZON and EURIZON CAPITAL trademarks since 2006.
In assessing identity or confusing similarity the Panel finds that the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Complainants' trademarks and differs from such marks by merely adding the generic and geographic term “SPAIN” and the top-level domain name “.COM". Thus, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants' trademarks.
In UDRP cases where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, Panels agree that the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element (see paragraph 1.7 WIPO Overview 3.0).
UDRP panels also agree that the top-level domain is usually to be ignored for the purpose of determination of identity or confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark as it is a technical requirement of registration (see paragraph 1.11.1 WIPO Overview 3.0).
Hence, this Panel finds that the Complainants have proven the first element of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants' marks.
2. THE RESPONDENT’S LACK OF RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS TO THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
It is a consensus view of UDRP panels that the complainant shall establish a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name to shift the burden of proof to the respondent (see paragraph 2.1 WIPO Overview 3.0: "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").
The Complainants affirm that Respondent has never received any approval of the Complainants, expressed or implied, to use the Complainants' trademarks or to register and use the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name was registered on September 4, 2020 by Angel Gonzalez, an individual residing in Spain. Therefore, there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name or has acquired any trademark or service mark right in the expression "EURIZONCAPITALSPAIN".
The expression "EURIZON" is a fanciful sign and has no dictionary meaning.
UDRP panels have held that where a domain name consists of a trademark plus an additional term (at the second – or top-level), such composition cannot constitute fair use if it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. Geographic terms (e.g., name of a country or a city) are seen as tending to suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner (see paragraph 2.5.1 WIPO Overview 3.0).
At the moment of the filing of the Complaint the disputed domain name resolved to a website in Spanish language related to banking and financial services, business in which the Complainants are involved. Such use of the disputed domain name is clearly not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the Complainants’ marks (see paragraph 2.5.3 WIPO Overview 3.0: "a respondent’s use of a complainant’s mark to redirect users (e.g., to a competing site) would not support a claim to rights or legitimate interests").
While the Complainants have established their prima facie case, the Respondent has not submitted a Response to the Complaint and, thus, has failed to invoke any of the circumstances, which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainants have met the second requirement of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and finds that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name.
3. BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name which is to be considered confusingly similar to Complainants' marks, since it incorporates the EURIZON and EURIZON CAPITAL trademarks in their entirety and differs from those marks merely by adding the generic and geographic term “SPAIN" and the TLD “.COM" (which is disregarded for the purpose of determination of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademarks of the Complainants as it is a technical requirement of registration).
Given the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainants and their marks, it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name for a mere chance without actual knowledge of the Complainants' rights in such marks and the intention to exploit such reputation by diverting traffic away from the Complainants’ website(s).
The Complainants have also submitted the results of a Google search on the term “EURIZON”, all of them related to the Complainants, and affirmed that, due to the reputation of the Complainants' marks worldwide, the Respondent had registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainants' marks.
At the moment of the filing of the Complaint the disputed domain name resolved to a website in Spanish language related to banking and financial services, thus, competing with the business of the Complainants.
Taken into account the above-mentioned circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants and their marks (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainants have discharged the burden of proof to show that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
|