Apavee.com

The timeline behind apavee.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 AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Apave v. Linda Woods Case No. D2025-4545 1. The Parties The Complainant is Apave, France, represented by Sala-Martin Avocat, France. The Respondent is Linda Woods, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <apavee.com> is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was f iled with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 4, 2025. On November 4, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 4, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which dif f ered f rom the named Respondent (PERFECT PRIVACY, LLC) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an e-mail communication to the Complainant on November 7, 2025, providing the registrant and contact inf ormation disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amended Complaint on November 10, 2025. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 13, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was December 3, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on December 5, 2025. The Center appointed Geert Glas as the sole panelist in this matter on December 9, 2025. The Panel f inds 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a company which was founded in France in 1867 and is specialized in risk management. Today, its 18,000 employees provide services relating to inspection, certification, saf ety and other types of risk management in over 50 countries, including the United States of America. The Complainant owns trademark registrations in many countries around the world which cover the word APAVE. These include: - French trademark no. 4369307 f iled on June 16, 2017; and - International trademark no. 1430432 registered on November 20, 2017, and covering a large number of countries, including the United States of America. On December 3, 1998, the Complainant registered the domain name <apave.com> which it uses to present its activities to the public at large. The Respondent is an individual domiciled in the United States of America. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 27, 2025. It appears f rom evidence provided by the Complainant that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in an email address from which a customer of the Complainant was contacted on August 27, 2025. This email contained a request to replace an earlier invoice issued on July 31, 2025, by the Complainant to this customer by an identical invoice except for the IBAN and BIC mentions which were changed to a bank account at a United Kingdom bank unknown to the Complainant. It should be noted that the f irst and last names which were used in this email address composed from the disputed domain name correspond with the f irst and last name of the f inancial manager of the Complainant. This email with the accompanying new invoice was conf irmed by a letter sent by the Respondent to this customer with the f ollowing content: “We would like to inform you that our account is currently undergoing an upgrade, which results in a new IBAN number f or the payment of overdue invoices. Please update your records with the inf ormation attached to the email for the payment of overdue invoices and all future payments until f urther notice. You will f ind the new bank details below.” (translation of the original French language text which reads: “No us tenons à vous informer que notre compte fait actuellement l’objet d’une mise à niveau, ce qui entraîne un nouveau numéro IBAN pour le paiement des factures échues. Veuillez mettre à jour vos dossiers avec les inf ormations jointes à l’e-mail pour le paiement des f actures échues et tous les paiements f uturs jusqu’à nouvel ordre. Vous trouverez ci-dessous les nouvelles coordonées bancaires”). Both the email and the letter prominently displayed the Complainant’s APAVE mark and logo. Upon receipt of this email and letter, the customer contacted the Complainant who subsequently f iled the Complaint. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends t hat the entirety of the Complainant’s APAVE mark is incorporated in the disputed domain name and that as a result it must be considered confusingly similar to its APAVE mark. The addition of the letter “e” does not change this f inding. page 3 The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name as there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent is also not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or f air use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant finally is also of the opinion that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of the well known nature of the APAVE mark, including in the United States of America, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s APAVE mark when registering the disputed domain name and could not have ignored that by registering the disputed domain name it would inf ringe the Complainant’s rights in the APAVE mark. The Complainant is of the opinion that the bad faith use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent is evidenced by the f ollowing f acts: - The Complainant had sent to one of its customers an invoice dated July 7, 2025, mentioning the Complainant’s bank details to enable the customer to settle the Complainant’s invoice; - On August 27, 2025, this customer received an email sent from an email address composed f rom the disputed domain name which included an identical invoice with new bank details as well as a letter on the letterhead of the Complainant inf orming the customer of the change of bank details; - The f irst and last names used in this email address correspond to the name of the f inancial manager of the Complainant. According to the Complainant, the above demonstrates the intent of the Respondent to usurp the identity of the Complainant and thereby constitutes a f raudulent use of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name which is only distinguished from the APAVE mark by the presence of an additional letter “e” at the end. This additional letter is however hardly noticeable, both visually and phonetically. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is conf usingly similar to the APAVE mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Based on the available record, the Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. page 4 Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is of ten primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, 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 f orward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent f ails to come f orward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima f acie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come f orward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. There is indeed no evidence whatsoever of the Respondent using the disputed domain name with a bona f ide offering of goods or services, the Respondent being commonly known by the disputed domain name or the Respondent making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. To the contrary: the Complainant has provided evidence showing that the disputed domain name has been used by the Respondent to create an email address which was subsequently used to try to lure a customer of the Complainant into settling an invoice issued by the Complainant by making a payment to a bank account which did not correspond to the bank account of the Complainant. It should be noted that the f irst and last names which were used in this email address composed f rom the disputed domain name co rrespond with the f irst and last name of the f inancial manager of the Complainant. Panels have held that the use of a domain name f or illegal activity, here f raud, can never conf er rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. Based on the available record, the Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, f or the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad f aith. As to the mere registration of the disputed domain name, it should be noted that panels have consistently f ound that the mere registration of a domain name which is confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad f aith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. This seems to be the case here, as the APAVE mark had become widely-known long bef ore the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent. As a result, the Respondent had or should have had knowledge of the Complainant’s activities and of its APAVE mark when registering the disputed domain name. This is also corroborated by the fact that the disputed domain name was registered on August 27, 2025, the exact same day on which the Respondent sent the abovementioned email composed f rom the disputed domain name to the customer of the Complainant, inviting them to settle an invoice of the Complainant by paying into a bank account which does not correspond to the Complainant’s bank account. As to the use of the disputed domain name, panels have held that the use of a domain name f or illegal activity, here fraud, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel f inds the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad f aith under the Policy. page 5 By using an email address composed from the disputed domain name to lure a customer of the Complainant into settling an invoice of the Complainant by making a payment in a dif f erent bank account than the one indicated by the Complainant in its original invoice, the Respondent has clearly made a fraudulent use of the disputed domain name. The f raudulent nature of the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain is f urther corroborated by the f act that the Respondent (i) used a personal name in this email address which correspond to the name of the financial manager of the Complainant, (ii) provided the customer with a f ake letter and “new” invoice, both on letterhead of the Complainant and (iii) prominently used the APAVE mark and logo on this email, invoice and letter which it sent to the Complainant’s customer. Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <apavee.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Geert Glas/ Geert Glas Sole Panelist Date: December 23, 2025

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