WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Caixa D�Estalvis I Pensions de Barcelona (“La Caixa”) v. Salvia Corporation
Case No. D2006-0504
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Caixa D�Estalvis I Pensions de Barcelona (“La Caixa”), Barcelona, Spain, represented by Jordi Kohn, Spain.
The Respondent is Salvia Corporation, Riga, Latvia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with DSTR Acquisition VII, LLC d/b/a D.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 20, 2006. On April 21, 2006, the Center transmitted by email to DSTR Acquisition VII, LLC d/b/a D a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On April 28, 2006, DSTR Acquisition VII, LLC d/b/a D transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the administrative, billing, and technical contact. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 8, 2006. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for the Response was May�28,�2006. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 29, 2006.
The Center appointed Ana Mar�a Pac�n as the sole panelist in this matter on June 13, 2006. 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 corporation in Barcelona, Spain. It is a saving bank. For the identification and promotion of its products the Complainant has registered the trademark “LA CAIXA” for – among others – “financial and insurance services” in Spain, Andorra and Mexico, said marks having been issued on April 17, 1989, January 24, 1997, and July 3, 2003, respectively. Likewise, the Complainant is the owner of several trademarks which contain the name “La Caixa” registered in Spain and in 49 other countries worldwide for similar services.
According to a printout of the WHOIS database of April 10, 2006, the disputed domain name is registered in the name of Salvia Corporation since April�2,�2005. According to a printout of the WHOIS database of October 7, 2005, the aforementioned registration was made initially on behalf of SIA Bouns. It appears that the disputed domain name was transferred from SIA Bouns to Salvia Corporation, both residents in Riga, Latvia.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
1. Similarity
The Complainant takes the position that the contested domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark “LA CAIXA”, hence satisfying the confusing similarity requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and paragraph 3(b) of the Rules. The addition of “es” in the domain name is not sufficient to avoid misleading the Internet users about the real identity of the holder of the domain name. The Complainant cited a lot of decisions having held that generic elements are not relevant when examining the similarity between the contested domain name and the registered trademark. In addition, the letters “es” correspond to the territorial level domain name of Spain, which increases the probability of confusion.
2. No legitimate interests
The Respondent does not have a registration or pending trademark application for the mark “LA CAIXA” or any other mark similar to the aforementioned.
3. Bad faith
The fact that the Respondent registered a domain name almost identical with the Complainant’s trademarks, demonstrates bad faith on the part of the Respondent.
The Respondent has, at no time, made commercial use of the disputed domain name. This demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests regarding said domain name.
Moreover, as has been demonstrated by the Complainant, the Complainant has a well renowned name in the financial sector in Spain (currently being among the foremost Spanish saving banks) and Europe. Therefore, it can be assumed that the Respondent has known the Complainant’s rights in the trademarks “LA CAIXA”. In fact, by conducting a simple trademark search, the Respondent could have learned of the Complainant’s trademark registration. The inclusion of the generic first level domain “es” in the contested domain name is not casual, but is evocative of the Respondent’s intention to mislead the consumer or at least to obtain some type of economic gain by using the contested domain name.
Finally, the Respondent has already been involved in similar activities. There is evidence that the Respondent is named in another case where it is alleged that it registered and used a domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
According to Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide a Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
1) the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
2) the Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
A Complainant must establish two elements under Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy: i) the Complainant has rights in a trademark or a service mark, and ii) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark.
The Complainant has provided sufficient evidence of its rights to the trademark “LA CAIXA” in Spain and other countries, as well as to other trademarks that contain the phrase “LA CAIXA”. The only difference between the Complainant’s trademark “LA CAIXA” and the domain name is the addition of the term “es”.
The addition of the generic first level domain name “es” strengthens the risk of confusion since it makes reference to the country code top level domain of Spain. Therefore, the consumer may think that the contested domain name constitutes a variation of the trademark “LA CAIXA” owned by the Complainant, which has its base precisely in Spain.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
According to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
Paragraph 4(c) sets out certain circumstances, in particular but without limitation, which if found by the Panel to be proved on its evaluation of all the evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or a legitimate interest on the part of the Respondent. The Respondent has not submitted a response and has failed to invoke any circumstances that demonstrate any right or legitimate interest in the domain name.
There is no doubt that the Respondent is using the domain name to operate a website featuring links to various financial websites, some of which compete with the Complainant and from which the Respondent presumably receives referral fees. The Respondent did not give any explanation for why it chose the name “lacaixaes” to conduct any sort of legitimate business.
The Complainant does not appear to have licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use its trademark or any domain name incorporating the trademark.
Upon this circumstantial background, it can be inferred that the Respondent registered the domain name containing a known trademark for the purpose of unfairly obtaining an economic gain.
Thus, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests, within the meaning of Paragraph 4(a)(ii) and (c)(i-iii) of the Policy in respect of the disputed domain name.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii) requires the Complainant to prove that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith. The language of Policy Paragraph 4(a)(iii) requires that both bad faith registration and bad faith use be proved.
The Policy, paragraph 4(b), indicates that certain circumstances may, “in particular but without limitation”, be evidence of bad faith.
In the present case, the Respondent’s bad faith is suggested by the following elements:
- There are several circumstances indicating that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of the registration of the domain name at issue. The Complainant’s trademarks are well known in Spain and at least in Europe. The Complainant submitted many pages of exhibits evidencing the widespread recognition of its financial services.
- As already discussed, the contested domain name is almost identical to the registered trademarks of the Complainant. The domain name was registered after the Complainant registered its trademarks.
- The Complainant and the Respondent are working in related fields. ’
- The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to commercial websites from which the Respondent presumably receives referral fees. Such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration.
- The inclusion of the generic first level domain name “es” cannot be casual, but reflects the Respondent’s intention to associate the domain name with the country where the Complainant has its headquarters.
- Since the Respondent is using a domain name which is virtually identical to the Complainant’s trademark, internet users may be confused as to the Complainant’s sponsorship or affiliation with the associated website.
- In the absence of any possible explanation for the Respondent choosing the name “lacaixaes”, it is likely that the Respondent did intend to profit from the confusion created with the Complainant’s trademarks.
The combination of the above factors makes it inconceivable to the Panel that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s trademark when it registered the contested domain name. Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and being used in bad faith.
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Ana Mar�a Pac�n
Sole Panelist
Dated: July 20, 2006
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy