The Complainant is Banco Bradesco S.A. of São Paulo, Brazil, represented by Salusse, Marangoni, Leite, Parente, Jabur, Klug e Périllier Advogados, Brazil.
The Respondent is Fernando Camacho Bohm of São Paulo, Brazil. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Disputed Domain Name is registered with eNom. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 14, 2010. On September 15, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to eNom a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name.
On September 15, 2010, eNom 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 September 20, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 10, 2010. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 13, 2010.
The Center appointed Ms. Erica Aoki as the sole panelist in this matter on October 25, 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.
The language of the administrative proceeding is English, the language of the registration agreement. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant Banco Bradesco S.A. (referred to as the “Complainant”) is one of the largest private banks in Brazil and is well-known in Brazil and other territories as a result of extensive business volume.
The Complainant has used the trademark Bradesco in connection with the banking business since 1943.
When the Complainant became aware that the Respondent had registered the Domain Name , the Complainant decided to file the present Complaint. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant, Banco Bradesco S.A., started its activities in Brazil in 1943, in a small countryside town in the State of São Paulo (Marília), then named Banco Brasileiro de Descontos S/A. At that time, the Complainant directed its products and services to small businesses, which was not very common to banking businesses in those days. Eight years after its establishment, it became one of the largest Brazilian corporations and in the 1980s, the Complainant acquired 17 banks, reaching the number of one thousand branches in that decade. The Complainant is presently the second largest privately-owned Brazilian group.
The BRADESCO trade name and trademark, which derive from its initial name, Banco BRAsileiro de DESCOntos S/A., has been used for more than sixty years and are now well-known within the Brazilian territory and abroad. The Complainant’s word trademark “BRADESCO” is declared notorious (Trademark Registration No. 007170424) by the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office.
The Complainant also owns registration No. 827266090, word trademark BRADESCOMPLETO, filed on March 30, 2005 and valid until April 08, 2018 and 2009INOVE BRADESCOMPLETO trademark application No. 901312410, filed on November 17, 2008 (Provided as Annexes 17-18 to the Complaint).
The Complainant is the owner of more than 100 domain names incorporating the BRADESCO mark besides dozens of others throughout the world, including registered on May 25, 2005 and registered on Jan. 01, 1996. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
The Complainant must be able to show the requirements specified under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy:
(i) that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in respect of which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the facts presented by Complainant, this Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the BRADESCO and BRADESCOMPLETO marks in which the Complainant has rights under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). There is no doubt, in this Panel’s view, that the Disputed Domain Name is confusing similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, as the Disputed Domain Name includes the Complainant’s marks in full, with only the addition of the letter “i” to the BRADESCOMPLETO mark. The Panel further notes that the gTLD suffix “.com” is not relevant to the test for confusing similarity under this element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is in default and thus has made no affirmative attempt to show its rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.
The Policy indicates that a registrant may have a legitimate interest in a domain name if it was making use of the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to notice of the dispute.
The Panel finds that the Respondent must have had knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark rights since it is a notorious trademark in Brazil.
From the record, it appears that the Respondent is in no way connected with the Complainant and has no authorization to use any of the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Policy also indicates that a registrant may have a legitimate interest in a domain name if it is making fair use of the domain name. The Panel finds, in view of the Respondent’s actions, discussed below, that this is not the case.
There is no evidence that the Respondent is or was commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name as an individual, business or other organization.
Thus the Respondent has no known rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. There is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, under policy Paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant’s trademark is recognized as being well-known in Brazil. So, the Panel finds that it is very likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights to the BRADESCO trademark, showing that the registration of the Disputed Domain Name was made in bad faith.
Based on the undisputed allegations of the Complainant, the Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a phishing scam.
From the date of registration, it became clear that the Respondent only registered the Disputed Domain Name with the purpose of unduly profiting from the rightful owner’s prestige and efforts, luring Internet users and the Complainant’s clients to input their banking data through the use of a phishing scam.
The Complainant became aware of the domain name and that it was being used to download crimeware.
The Complainant contends, and the Respondent has not denied, that the Respondent is dedicated to spreading phishing attempts, through the use of the domain name, as confirmed by the evidence submitted with the Complaint, and that was being used in connection with a phishing scam. The Complainant sent an e-mail to the Registrar asking it to block the website active at the Disputed Domain Name stating that it was being used in connection with a fraud scheme, directing the Complainant’s customers to “false” pages. In the Panel’s view the Respondent was engaged in a phishing scam, which was intended to generate revenue for the Respondent.
The Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to an on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark and company name as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or other location, and this constitutes evidence of bad faith. (Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv)).
Also, based on the undisputed allegations, the Panel finds that the registration of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent’s was undertaken in order to divert Internet users seeking information about the Complainant.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. (Policy, paragraphs. 4(a)(iii), 4(b)). 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 Disputed Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
Erica Aoki
Sole Panelist
Dated: November 8, 2010
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy