Info-paylibs.com

The timeline behind info-paylibs.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Paylib Services v. Viktoriya Kunteeva Case No. D2022-4993 1. The Parties The Complainant is Paylib Services, France, represented by Aramis Société d’Avocats, France. The Respondent is Viktoriya Kunteeva, Russian Federation. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <info-paylibs.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint in English was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 21, 2022 1 . On December 27, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On December 29, 2022, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 10, 2023, 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 January 13, 2023. On January 10, 2023, the Center sent an email communication to the Parties in both English and Russian regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding on January 13, 2023. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding. 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”). 1 The original Complaint referred to the Domain Name and the disputed domain names <paylib-info.online>, <paylibfrance.com>, <e-votre-reecupaylib-fr.com>, <paylibversement.com>, <pay-paylib.com> and <info-paylibs.online>. On January 18, 2023, the Center acknowledged receipt of the Complainant's request to withdraw all the disputed domain names, except the Domain Name, received on December 26, 2022. page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 20, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 9, 2023. Due to an administrative oversight, the Center granted the Respondent a twenty extra day period (e.g., through March 20, 2023). The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default and proceeded to appoint an administrative Panel in this matter. The Center appointed Piotr Nowaczyk as the sole panelist in this matter on April 3, 2023. 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 provides electronic payment service in France, including online payment service, contactless payment service and mobile payment service. It has been created by a consortium of several French banks in 2010. Currently, the Complainant’s electronic payment service has been adopted and is being offered by the majority of French banks. The Complainant is the owner of numerous PAYLIB trademark registrations, including: - the European Union Trade Mark Registration PAYLIB (word) No. 018208901 registered on August 7, 2020; - the European Union Trade Mark Registration PAYLIB (figurative) No. 018209143 registered on August 7, 2020; - the French Trademark Registration PAYLIB (word) No. 4559533 registered on June 13, 2019; and - the French Trademark Registration PAYLIB (figurative) No. 4033340 registered on September 18, 2019. The Complainant is also the owner of numerous domain names incorporating its PAYLIB trademark, such as <pay-lib.com>, <paylibservices.com> and <paylib.online>. The Domain Name was registered on October 31, 2022. As of the date of this Decision, as well as at the time of submitting the Complainant, the Domain Name has resolved to an inactive website. In addition, the Domain Name has been as “dangerous”, “misleading” or “deceptive” and likely to be used for phishing purposes. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant. According to the Complainant, each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in the present case. First, the Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the PAYLIB trademark registrations in which the Complainant has rights. Second, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has neither rights nor legitimate interests in the Domain Name. page 3 Third, the Complainant submits that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy places a burden on the Complainant to prove the presence of three separate elements, which can be summarized as follows: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The requested remedy may only be granted if the above criteria are met. At the outset, the Panel notes that the applicable standard of proof in UDRP cases is the “balance of probabilities” or “preponderance of the evidence”. See section 4.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”). A. Language of the Proceeding The language of the Registration Agreement for the Domain Name is Russian. Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that “unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding”. The Panel may also order that any documents submitted in a language other than that of the proceeding be translated. As noted by previous UDRP panels, paragraph 11 of the Rules must be applied in accordance with the overriding requirements of paragraphs 10(b) and 10(c) of the Rules that the parties are treated equally, that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case, and that the proceeding takes place with due expedition (see, e.g., General Electric Company v. Edison Electric Corp. a/k/a Edison Electric Corp. General Energy, Edison GE, Edison-GE and EEEGE.COM, WIPO Case No. D2006-0334 ). The Complainant has submitted a request that the language of the proceeding be English. The Complainant contends, inter alia, that it is located in France and has no knowledge of Russian. Conducting the proceeding in English would lead to delay and additional costs on the part of the Complainant. Moreover, the Complainant notes that the Domain Name contains Latin characters. Finally, the Complainant alleges that English is the primary language for international relations. The Panel agrees that substantial additional expense and delay would likely be incurred if the Complaint had to be translated into Russian. Moreover, the Panel notes that the Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding nor reply to the notification of the Complaint, even though it was notified in English and Russian regarding the language of the proceeding and the Complaint. Thus, taking these circumstances into account, the Panel finds that it is appropriate to exercise its discretion and allow the proceeding to be conducted in English. page 4 B. Identical or Confusingly Similar The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has rights in valid PAYLIB trademark registrations, which precede the registration of the Domain Name. The Domain Name incorporates the PAYLIB trademark in its entirety. As numerous UDRP panels have held, incorporating a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark (see PepsiCo, Inc. v. PEPSI, SRL (a/k/a P.E.P.S.I.) and EMS Computer Industry (a/k/a EMS), WIPO Case No. D2003-0696 ). The addition of the term “info-“ and the letter “s” after the term “paylib” in the Domain Name, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the PAYLIB trademark in which the Complainant has rights. Prior UDRP panels have consistently held that where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms, whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise), would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. See section 1.8, WIPO Overview 3.0 . The Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) “.com” in the Domain Name is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. See section 1.11.1, WIPO Overview 3.0 . Given the above, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the PAYLIB trademark in which the Complainant has rights. Thus, the Complainant has proved the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests The second requirement the Complainant must prove is that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The respondent may establish a right or legitimate interest in the domain name by demonstrating in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy any of the following: (i) that it has used or made 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 prior to the dispute; or (ii) that it is commonly known by the domain name, even if it has not acquired any trademark rights; or (iii) that it is making a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark. Although given the opportunity, the Respondent has not submitted any evidence indicating that any of the circumstances foreseen in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy are present in this case. On the contrary, it results from the evidence on record that the PAYLIB trademark registrations, in which the Complainant has rights, predate the Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name. There is no evidence in the case file that the Complainant has licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use this trademark or to register the Domain Name incorporating this trademark. There is also no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name. Moreover, it results from the evidence on record that the Respondent does not make use of the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor does it make a legitimate, page 5 noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. On the contrary, at the time of submitting the Complainant and as of the date of this Decision, the Domain Name has resolved to an inactive website. In fact, it does not result from the case evidence that the Domain Name has been used in any active way to date. Given the above, the Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances, which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Thus, there is no evidence in the case file that refutes the Complainant’s prima facie case. The Panel concludes that the Complainant has also proved the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The third requirement the Complainant must prove is that the Domain Nam was registered and is being used in bad faith. Bad faith under the UDRP is broadly understood to occur where a respondent takes unfair advantage of or otherwise abuses a complainant’s mark. See section 3.1, WIPO Overview 3.0 . Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, evidence of bad faith registration and use includes without limitation: (i) circumstances indicating the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the owner of a trademark or to a competitor of the trademark owner, for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of- pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered in order to prevent the owner of a trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided it is a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) circumstances indicating that the domain name has intentionally been used in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on a website or location. As indicated above, the Complainant’s rights in the PAYLIB trademark predate the registration of the Domain Name. This Panel finds that the Respondent was or should have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the Domain Name, as it has been proven to the Panel’s satisfaction that the PAYLIB trademark is well-known and unique to the Complainant. Thus, the Respondent could not possibly ignore the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark. In sum, the Respondent registered the Domain Name with the expectation of taking advantage of the reputation of the PAYLIB trademark in which the Complainant has rights. Moreover, as of the date of this Decision, as well as at the time of submitting the Complainant, the Domain Name has resolved to an inactive website. Considering the overall circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s passive holding of the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith. As numerous UDRP panels have held, passive holding, under the totality of circumstances of the case, would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. See section 3.3, WIPO Overview 3.0 . Here, given the Respondent’s failure to participate in this proceeding, as well as the implausible good faith use to which the Domain Name may be put, the Panel agrees with the above. For the reasons discussed above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proved the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. page 6 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 Domain Name <info-paylibs.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Piotr Nowaczyk/ Piotr Nowaczyk Sole Panelist Date: April 13, 2023

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.