Groupama SA -v- Owen Webster

Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service

DRS 04952

Groupama SA -v- Owen Webster

Decision of Independent Expert

1.	Parties:

Lead Complainant:	Groupama SA
	France
	
Respondent:	Owen Webster
	Lebanon

2.	Domain Name:

groupamainsurance.co.uk ("the Domain Name")

3.	Procedural Background:

The Complaint was filed on 9 August 2007.  Nominet validated the Complaint and sent a copy to the Respondent.

No Response was received by Nominet.

On 14 September 2007 the Complainants paid Nominet the required fee for a decision of an Expert pursuant to the Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service Policy ("the Policy").

Nominet invited the undersigned, Jason Rawkins ("the Expert"), to provide a decision on this case and duly appointed the undersigned as the Expert with effect from 1 October 2007.

4.	The Parties' Contentions:

Complainants

The Complainants' submissions, which are relevant to this decision, can be summarised as follows:

1.	The Complainants have rights in respect of a name or trade mark which is identical or similar to the Domain Name:

(1)	The Complainants are Groupama SA, an internationally known insurance business, and its wholly-owned subsidiary Groupama Insurance Company Limited.

(2)	The Groupama group traces its origins to 1840 and has grown to become one of the world's leading mutual property and casualty insurers and one of Europe's largest financial services groups.

(3)	Groupama Insurance Company Limited has traded as "Groupama Insurances" since 1999.  It advertises extensively under the names "Groupama" and "Groupama Insurances".

(4)	Groupama SA is the owner of well-known trade marks all over the world.  In particular, it owns Community trade mark (CTM) registration number 1210863 for the word mark GROUPAMA, filed in January 2000 and registered in June 2000, and designating, amongst other things, insurance services; and CTM registration number 3543139 for "GROUPAMA" (semi-figurative), filed in October 2003 and registered in June 2005, again designating insurance services.

(5)	The Domain Name simply adds the words "insurance" to the internationally well-known GROUPAMA trade mark, "insurance" being a word which is descriptive of Groupama's business activities.  The Domain Name is also identical to the registered name of the English subsidiary company; and identical, except for the use of the singular instead of the plural, to the trading name "Groupama Insurances" used by it in providing its services in England.

2.	The Domain Name is an Abusive Registration in the hands of the Respondent:

(1)	The Domain Name was originally registered by the Respondent at the following address: Unit 5, 29-33 Wood Street Lane, Cove West, Sydney, NSW 2066, Australia (a print-out of WHOIS information dating from 27 March 2006 is annexed to the Complaint).

(2)	The Respondent has had three previous Nominet decisions against him, namely:

	-	DRS number 3811: National Counties Building Society -v- Owen Webster, dated 21 August 2006;

	-	DRS number 3967: Newbury Building Society -v- Owen Webster, dated 31 October 2006;

	-	DRS number 4200: Noble Marine -v- Owen Webster, dated 20 December 2006.

	Consequently, as per paragraph 3(c) of the Policy, a presumption arises of the Domain Name in this case being an Abusive Registration.

Respondent:

	No Response has been filed by the Respondent.  In this case, the absence of a Response is particularly significant because of a presumption against the Respondent which arises for another reason (see further below).

5.	The Facts:

	The Nominet records show that the Domain Name was registered on 7 July 2005.  

	Based on the Complainants' submissions and a review of the materials annexed to the Complaint, set out below are the relevant facts which I have accepted as being true in reaching a decision in this case:

(1)	The Groupama group is a long-established and well-known insurance services business.

(2)	Groupama SA is the proprietor of two GROUPAMA CTM registrations, both of which pre-date the registration date of the Domain Name.

(3)	The Respondent previously used the address in Australia noted above, and has had three Nominet decisions against him (see further below).

6.	Discussion and Findings:

General
Paragraph 2 of the Policy provides that, to be successful, the Complainants must prove on the balance of probabilities that:
i	[they have] Rights in respect of a name or mark which is identical or similar to the Domain Name; and

ii	the Domain Name, in the hands of the Respondent, is an Abusive Registration (as defined in paragraph 1 of the Policy).

Complainants' Rights

Disregarding the generic .co.uk suffix, the Domain Name is clearly very similar to the mark GROUPAMA and the trading name "Groupama Insurances" owned and used by the Complainants.

As for Rights, based on the facts which I have found, it is clear that the Complainants have established goodwill in the names Groupama and Groupama Insurances, and accordingly legal rights in those names.  In addition, by virtue of the two CTM registrations, the Complainants have registered legal rights in the mark GROUPAMA.

I therefore find that the first limb of paragraph 2 of the Policy is satisfied.

Abusive Registration

Paragraph 1 of the Policy defines an "Abusive Registration" as:

"A Domain Name which either:
i	was registered or otherwise acquired in a manner which, at the time when the registration or acquisition took place, took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to the Complainant's Rights; OR
ii	has been used in a manner which took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to the Complainant's Rights."

There is a "three strikes and you are out" provision at paragraph 3c of the Policy which states the following:

	"There shall be a presumption of Abusive Registration if the Complainant proves that the Respondent has been found to have made an Abusive Registration in three or more Dispute Resolution Service cases in the two years before the Complaint was filed.  This presumption can be rebutted (see paragraph 4c)."

The related paragraph 4c of the Policy states:

	"If paragraph 3c applies, to succeed the Respondent must rebut the presumption by proving in the Response that the Registration of the Domain Name is not an Abusive Registration."

All of the three Nominet decisions against the Respondent, to which the Complainants make reference (see above), date from within the period of two years prior to the Complaint in this case being filed.  In addition, it is clear that the "Owen Webster" who is the Respondent in this case is the same person as the "Owen Webster" in all three of the previous DRS decisions.  In the first of those decisions (DRS number 3811), the address listed for the Respondent is exactly the same as the one which is currently listed for the Domain Name in this case.  As for the other two previous decisions (DRS numbers 3967 and 4200), the address listed for the Respondent was in both cases as follows: Unit 5, 29-33 Wood Street Lane, Cove West, Sydney, NSW 2066, Australia.  As noted above, this is the same address which was previously listed by the Respondent for the Domain Name in this case (a fact which has been verified for me by Nominet).

Paragraph 3c above does therefore apply; and, since it applies, there is a corresponding presumption against the Respondent.  This presumption can only be rebutted by the Respondent proving in a Response that the registration of the Domain Name is not an Abusive Registration (as per paragraph 4c of the Policy).  Since the Respondent has not filed any Response, the end result of this is that there must be a finding that the Domain Name in this case is an Abusive Registration.

7.	Decision:

Having found that the Complainants have rights in respect of a name which is identical or similar to the Domain Name, and that the Domain Name in the hands of the Respondent is an Abusive Registration, the Expert directs that the Domain Name groupamainsurance.co.uk be transferred to the Groupama Insurance Company Limited (as requested by the Complainants).

Jason Rawkins	5 October 2007