WIPO Domain Name Decision D2018-1638 for banquecaceis.com
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Caceis Bank v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyG / Auto Logisticx, Shain Roberts Case No. D2018-1638 1. The Parties
The Complainant is Caceis Bank of Paris, France, represented by Gevers Legal NV, Belgium.
The Respondent is Domain Administrator, See PrivacyG of Phoenix, Arizona, United States of America (“US”) / Auto Logisticx, Shain Roberts of Guangyuan Zhong, Guangzhou, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 19, 2018. On July 19, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 20, 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 25, 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 30, 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 31, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 20, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 21, 2018. Due to a clerical error, the Notification of Complaint was never sent to the privacy service used in connection with the registration of the disputed domain name. In light of this, and in an abundance of caution, noting the Respondent’s absence of a reply in this matter, the Center re-notified the Respondent of the Complaint via written notice delivered by courier, email and fax, allowing the Respondent a period of 10 days (until September 15, 2018), in which it could submit a response. The Respondent did not submit a response and, subsequently, on September 18, 2018, the Center notified the Parties that it would proceed to appoint the panel.
The Center appointed Torsten Bettinger as the sole panelist in this matter on October 2, 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 a banking group domiciled in Paris.
The Complainant states that its financial services are dedicated to institutional and corporate clients and that it offers its services through offices located in Europe, North America and Asia. The Complainant further states it is the “European leader in asset servicing and one of the major players worldwide”.
The Complainant further states, and provides evidence to support, that it is the owner of:
- European Union (EU) Reg. No. 4643573 CACEIS (Word mark) filed on September 21, 2005 and registered on February 26, 2008,
- EU Reg. No. 5770391 CACEIS INVESTOR SERVICES SOLID & INNOVATIVE (figurative mark) filed on March 20, 2007 and registered on February 26, 2008.
The disputed domain name was registered on May 30, 2018. The Complainant provided evidence that the Respondent used the disputed domain name for a website offering financial services, e.g., the opening of a bank account, credit card services and investments in certain assets, under the CACEIS trademark.
The Complainant sent an email to the Respondent on June 5, 2018 requesting the Respondent to immediately “close the website under the disputed domain name”. The Respondent did not respond to this email.
The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
With regard to the requirement of identity or confusing similarity between the trademark and the domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights as it incorporates the Complainant’s CACEIS trademark in its entirety and only differs from the Complainant’s trademark by the addition of the descriptive term “banque”.
The Complainant further argues that the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.com” is irrelevant when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark.
With regard to the Respondent having no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Complainant submitted that:
- its research has provided no evidence that the Respondent has rights in the trademark or company name CACEIS;
- it has not permitted the Respondent to register the disputed domain name;
- the Respondent used the domain name in connection with the offering of financial services and that therefore there is no indication that the Respondent has the intention to make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name;
- the website available offers financial services under the Complainant’s trademark and company name CACEIS and therefore demonstrates that the Respondent’s sole interest in the domain name is “to take unfair advantage of the reputation of the CACEIS trademarks by luring consumers to its website”.
Finally, with regard to the disputed domain name having been registered and being used in bad faith, the Complainant argues that:
- the Respondent cannot reasonably claim that it was not aware of the existence of the Complainant and its trademarks as it provides services competing with those of the Complainant;
- the address indicated in the section “Contact” of the website available under the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s address;
- various links available at the website under the disputed do