Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2016-1255
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:17:49+00:00

Document:
The Disputed Domain Name <pictetbkandtrust.com> is registered with Domain.com, LLC (the "Registrar").
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on June 21, 2016. On June 21, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On June 21, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 24, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 14, 2016. On July 13, 2016 and July 14, 2016, the Center received email communications from a third-party related to Respondent. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties of the commencement of the panel appointment process on July 15, 2016.
The Center appointed Flip Jan Claude Petillion as the sole panelist in this matter on July 19, 2016. 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.
- word mark PICTET, registered with the USPTO on October 16, 2001 under No. 2498316 in class 36.
The Disputed Domain Name <pictetbkandtrust.com> was registered on March 10, 2016. The Disputed Domain Name does not resolve to an active webpage.
On March 16, 2016, Complainant's authorized representative sent a cease and desist letters to Respondent by email and by registered mail, copying the Registrar. Complainant received no answer to this letter, nor to its reminder of April 11, 2016.
Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. However, the Center received email communications from a third party, claiming to be Respondent's wife. According to these communications, her husband's debit card number had been stolen and was used to set up the Disputed Domain Name.
To prove this element, Complainant must first establish that there is a trademark or service mark in which it has rights. Complainant has clearly established that there is a PICTET trademark in which it has rights. The trademark has been registered and used in various countries.
Accordingly, Complainant has made out the first of the three elements of the Policy that it must establish.
It is well established under the Policy that it is sufficient for a complainant to make a prima facie showing that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to shift the burden of production to the respondent. See Champion Innovations, Ltd. v. Udo Dussling (45FHH), WIPO Case No. D2005-1094; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455; Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o., WIPO Case No. D2004-0110.
In fact, Respondent is not making any use of the Disputed Domain Name and disclaims being the registrant. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.
Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith (see, e.g., Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Control Techniques Limited v. Lektronix Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2006-1052).
In the instant case, the Panel finds that Respondent must have had knowledge of Complainant's rights in the PICTET trademark at the moment it registered the Disputed Domain Name, since Complainant's trademark is a widely known trademark. Complainant has valid trademarks and offers services around the world. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's awareness of Complainant's trademark rights at the time of registration suggests bad faith (see Red Bull GmbH v. Credit du Léman SA, Jean-Denis Deletraz, supra; Nintendo of America Inc v. Marco Beijen, Beijen Consulting, Pokemon Fan Clubs Org., and Pokemon Fans Unite, supra, where POKÉMON was held to be a well-known mark of which the use by someone without any connection or legal relationship with the complainant suggested opportunistic bad faith; BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation v. Serena, Axel, WIPO Case No. D2006-0007, where it was held that the respondent acted in bad faith when registering the disputed domain name, because widespread and long-standing advertising and marketing of goods and services under the trademarks in question, the inclusion of the entire trademark in the domain name, and the similarity of products implied by addition of telecommunications services suffix ("voip") suggested knowledge of the complainant's rights in the trademarks).
Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name. The passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name may amount to bad faith when it is difficult to imagine any plausible future active use of the Disputed Domain Name by Respondent that would be legitimate and not infringing Complainant's well-known mark or contrary to unfair competition and consumer protection legislation (see Inter-IKEA v Polanski, WIPO Case No. D2000-1614; Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. Hoon Huh, WIPO Case No. D2000-0438; Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, supra). The fact that a complainant's trademark is widely known and the absence of any evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use are further circumstances that may evidence bad faith registration and use in the event of passive holding (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, supra).
In the present case, the Panel is of the opinion that Complainant's PICTET trademark is widely known, which makes it difficult to conceive of any plausible legitimate future use of the Disputed Domain Name by Respondent.
Finally, a third party, claiming to be Respondent's wife, submits that her husband's contact details and debit card were abused to register the Disputed Domain Name. If this allegation is true, no good faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name is conceivable. If this allegation is false such a false defense would also be demonstrative of the bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name.
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Name, <pictetbkandtrust.com> be transferred to Complainant.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.