WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Zanta Consult Case No. D2018-1496 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Virgin Enterprises Limited of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("United Kingdom" or "UK"), represented by Stobbs IP Limited, United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Zanta Consult of Nanterre, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on July 4, 2018. On July 4, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 5, 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 13, 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 16, 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 20, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 9, 2018. The Respondent did not reply to the Complaint. On August 10, 2018, the Center informed the Parties that it would commence the panel appointment process.

The Center appointed Andrea Jaeger-Lenz as the sole panelist in this matter on August 14, 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 Complainant is the brand owner of the Virgin group of companies which was established in 1970 and nowadays comprises over 60 businesses worldwide. They mainly focus on five sectors that include travel and leisure, telecommunications, music & entertainment, financial services, and health and wellness. The Virgin Group operates in 35 countries and generates an annual group turnover in excess of GBP 16.6 billion. It owns extensive rights in the VIRGIN trade mark all over the world.

In 2012, Virgin Start Up, a non-profit organisation that helps entrepreneurs in England with the funding, resources and advice to set up their own businesses, was established. The Complainant owns rights in the UK trade mark No. 3015345 for VIRGIN START UP. The trade mark was registered on July 25, 2013.

In the time period of 2008-2010, the Complainant spent around GBP 80 million each year on above the line media and advertisements for its products under the VIRGIN brand. Promotion and publicity have appeared in major newspapers, magazines and periodicals, circulated in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, the Virgin Group sponsors various well known organisations and events such as the Virgin Money London Marathon, with millions of spectators each year.

The disputed domain name was registered on June 5, 2018 and does not resolve to an active website. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that all three requirements stated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are met in the present case.

(1) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark

The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's VIRGIN and VIRGIN START UP trade marks. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's VIRGIN and VIRGIN START UP trade marks in their entirety. The Complainant argues that the word "loans" is descriptive and therefore its addition does nothing to distinguish the domain from the Complainant's trade mark. The Complainant further sets out that a Google research for "virgin start up loans" leads to results that are referring to the Complainant's group of companies only and therefore the public would associate the domain with the Complainant.

(2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name

The Complainant is of the opinion that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its VIRGIN or VIRGIN START UP trade marks. Furthermore, the Respondent is not known by the name "Virgin" or "Virgin Start Up Loans" and has no trade mark registrations or rights in VIRGIN or VIRGIN START UP LOANS. Finally, the Complainant claims that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a legitimate offering of goods or services.

(3) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith

The Complainant claims that the registration of the disputed domain name is a classic example of a bad faith registration in accordance with paragraph 4(b) of the Policy. The Complainant sets out that the Complainant became aware of the existence of the disputed domain name when it received a report about scam activity associated with it. The scam activity consisted of emails that were sent from the email address legal@, falsely represented as being sent by the General Counsel