WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Banco Bradesco S/A v. Martha Dantas Case No. D2010-0646 1. The Parties
Complainant is Banco Bradesco S/A of Osasco, Brazil, represented by Neumann, Salusse, Marangoni Advogados, Brazil.
Respondent is Ms. Martha Dantas of Belo Horizonte, Brazil. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Melbourne IT Ltd. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 23, 2010. On April 23, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to Melbourne IT Ltd. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 29, 2010, Melbourne IT Ltd. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 6, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 26, 2010. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on May 27, 2010.
The Center appointed José Pio Tamassia Santos as the sole panelist in this matter on June 11, 2010. 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
4.1 Complainant is one of the largest Brazilian private banks, being located in Cidade de Deus, city of Osasco in the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil.
4.2 Complainant, in addition to the and domain names, owns the BRADESCO trademark, which it has used in the banking business since 1943.
4.3 Complainant’s trade name BRADESCO is protected as a trademark in Brazil and it is registered in many countries worldwide.
4.4 As of reference evidence, Complainant has submitted copies of the Brazilian Trademark Registration No. 007170424 for the word mark BRADESCO filed on June 13, 1979 and granted on June 10, 1980, indicating that the priority date for the mark BRADESCO is June 10, 1980.
4.5 The mark BRADESCO is an invented term that derives from Complainant’s initial name, Banco Brasileiro de Descontos S/A.
4.6 In Brazil and throughout the world Complainant is the owner of more than 100 domain names incorporating the BRADESCO trademark, such as the domain names , registered on July 2, 1996 and , registered on January 1, 1996.
4.7 The domain name was registered on the Internet, with the registrar Melbourne IT on January 15, 2010 in the name of Respondent.
4.8 On a reply communication to the Center, Respondent reported that her personal documents and credit card were once stolen and some other entity registered the disputed domain name without her knowledge or consent.
4.9 Respondent did not file a formal Response in these proceedings and was notified of its default by the Center. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
5.1 Complainant states that it has exclusive rights in the trademark BRADESCO, granted by its registration in Brazil and many other countries worldwide.
5.2 Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BRADESCO trademark, that is, the disputed domain name incorporates this trademark in its entirety, adding only the prefix “-net” and the gTLD “.org”.
5.3 Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, adding that no license, permission or authorization consent was granted to the Respondent to use the BRADESCO trademark in any domain name.
5.4 Complainant contends that Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a good faith offering of goods and services.
Instead, Respondent has used Complainant’s trademark, incorporated into the disputed domain name, and registered this domain name with the purpose of unduly profiting from Complainant’s prestige, luring Internet users and Complainant’s clients to input their banking data through the use of a phishing scam, thereby enticing users to “reregister” or input data.
5.5 Complainant contends that Respondent is not making a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
5.6 Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Complainant contends that Respondent seeks to capitalize on the reputation of Complainant’s mark – which is an invented term that has no meaning outside the trademark context – to obtain confidential data from Internet users and Complainant’s clients.
5.7 Complainant requests that the disputed domain name should be transferred to Complainant. B. Respondent
Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions. Respondent’s only submission was in the form of a reply on May 14, 2010 to a communication from the Center, reporting that Respondent has nothing to do with the registration of the disputed domain name and that this registration possibly occurred because Respondent once had her personal documents and credit card stolen. 6. Discussion and Findings
6.1 The Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules, provide specified remedies to trademark owners against registrants of domain names where the owner of the mark (Complainant) proves each of the following elements:
(a) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(b) The registrant (Respondent) has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(c) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
6.2 Complainant has the burden of proof, with respect to each element mentioned in paragraph 6.1.
6.3 Respondent, having failed to respond as required in these proceedings, is in default, and in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, “the panel shall draw such inferences […] as it considers appropriate”. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.4 Complainant has exclusive rights in the mark BRADESCO and has provided evidence of this fact.
6.5 Complainant’s mark is an invented and coined term that has received worldwide recognition. The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the mark adding only the prefix term “-net” and the gTLD suffix “.org” These additions do nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s well known trademark. This Panel cites with approval accepts the decisions in the Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Tamiflu Shop,WIPO Case No. D2006-0308 and EAuto, L.L.C. v. Triple S. Auto Parts d/b/a Kung Fu Yea Enterprises, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0047 cases, which establish that incorporation of the entirety of a mark in which complainant has rights amounts to confusing similarity between the mark and the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Lack of Rights or Legitimate Interests
6.6 According to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the burden of demonstrating a respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests rests with complainant.
6.7 In this case, Complainant has offered meaningful explanations and has provided enough evidence of its exclusive rights concerning the mark BRADESCO. Therefore the burden shifts to Respondent to bring forward evidence of its rights or legitimate interests, if such evidence exists.
6.8 However, though Respondent has replied to a communication from the Center, indicating that she has nothing to do with the registration of the disputed domain name , and that this event possibly occurred because she once had her personal documents and credit card stolen, Respondent has failed to counter Complainant’s arguments or to provide any evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
6.9 Such failure by Respondent to file a Response leaves the Panel to decide the case on the basis of the available record and the evidence provided by Complainant, according to Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Tamiflu Shop,WIPO Case No. D2006-0308 and cases mentioned therein. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the second element under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied. C. Registered and used in Bad faith
6.10 Complainant states that Respondent has no license, authorization or granted permission to use the BRADESCO trademark, and there is no evidence to the contrary. Considering that Complainant’s trademark is an invented term that has achieved worldwide recognition, it is highly unlikely that Respondent chose the disputed domain name just by chance. This position is reinforced by the fact that the registration of Complainant’s mark and its domain names and pre-date Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name.
6.11 Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is neither fair use nor noncommercial use. Rather Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is for “cyber squatting” actions, such as sending “phishing” e-mail messages that are designed to induce Internet users and Complainant’s clients to reregister or input data. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the third element under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied 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 Complainant.
José Pio Tamassia Santos
Sole Panelist
Dated: June 23, 2010
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy