WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION AGFA-Gevaert N.V. v. Zachary D Beaver Case No. D2018-1463 1. The Parties

The Complainant is AGFA-Gevaert N.V. of Mortsel, Belgium, represented by Novagraaf Belgium NV/SA, Belgium.

The Respondent is Zachary D Beaver of Flippin, Arkansas, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with eNom, Inc. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on July 2, 2018. On July 2, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 2, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 6, 2018 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 July 6, 2018.

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").

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 10, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 30, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on July 31, 2018.

The Center appointed Syed Naqiz Shahabuddin as the sole panelist in this matter on August 16, 2018. 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 following summary sets out the uncontested factual submissions made by the Complainant:

4.1 The Complainant is a limited liability company, incorporated in Belgium, that is active in the medical sector as a developer of, inter alia, medical software and medical imaging devices.

4.2 The Complainant owns several trademarks for AGFA, including:

(a) European Union Trade Mark Registration no. 016044059 (hereinafter, the "AGFA HEALTHCARE mark") for classes 1, 5, 9, 10 and 42, registered on March 22, 2017,

(b) European Union Trade Mark Registration no. 003353463 AGFA, for classes 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 40 and 42, registered on January 24, 2005, and

4.3 In addition, the Complainant owns a domain name related to its AGFA marks, that being .

4.4 The disputed domain name was registered on February 27, 2018. The disputed domain name is not in use as of the date of this decision. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has rights in the trademarks listed in section 4 above and has produced copies of the relevant registration records available online.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its AGFA and AGFA HEALTHCARE marks as if it is constituted entirely of the Complainant's AGFA mark with the added word "health". The Complainant further contends that the additional word "health" in the disputed domain name increases the risk of confusion, given the activities of the Complainant.

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the name "Agfa" or "Agfahealth" and the disputed domain name is not even in use. The Complainant further states that it has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use its trademark or to apply for a domain name incorporating its AGFA mark. The Complainant submits that the Complainant has prior and exclusive rights to the name AGFA.

The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant submits that its AGFA mark is famous and predates the disputed domain name registration. As a result, the Respondent could not ignore the pre-existence of the Complainant's trademark rights and the Respondent must have been fully aware when selecting the disputed domain name.

The Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name is similar to its AGFA and AGFA HEALTHCARE marks as well as the Complainant's existing domain name . The Complainant submits that this gives rise to the presumption that the disputed domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of selling the domain name to the Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent's out-of-pocket expenses directly related to the disputed domain name and/or that it was merely registered in order to prevent the C