The Complainant is Banco Bradesco S.A. of Osasco, São Paulo, Brazil, represented by Salusse Marangoni Advogados, Brazil.
The Respondent is Marcos Soares of Adamantina, São Paulo, Brazil. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Internet Group do Brasil S.A. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 23, 2010. On September 23, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to Internet Group do Brasil S.A. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. Since no reply was received, the Center transmitted the message again by e-mail on October 1, 2010 and on October 6, 2010. On October 15 2010 a kind reminder was sent, but again no response was received. On October 27 the Center contacted the Registrar by phone, which was confirmed by an e-mail of same date requiring the same information. A new reminder was addressed on October 29, 2010. In the absence of a response, the Center informed the Registrar on November 2, 2010, that if no reply was received by November 3, 2010, the case would need to proceed on the assumption that the information provided by the relevant WhoIs database is accurate.
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 November 10, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was November 30, 2010. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 1, 2010.
The Center appointed Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira as the sole panelist in this matter on December 10, 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
The Complainant is Banco Bradesco S.A., a Brazilian banking corporation, established at Cidade de Deus, in the city of Osasco, state of São Paulo, Brazil. The Complainant started its activities in Brazil in 1943, in a small town of the interior of the state of São Paulo (Marília) under the name Banco BRAsileiro de DESCOntos S/A (emphasis added). Complainant has been using trademark BRADESCO for more than sixty years. There are several registrations for this mark throughout the world, owned by the Complainant. The renown of this mark was recognized by the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office, which declared the Brazilian Trademark Registration No. 007170424 for the word mark BRADESCO to be “notorious” under the Brazilian Law No. 5,772/71 which foresaw special protection to highly renowned marks. Besides, the Complainant also owns valid registration for the word mark BRADESCOMPLETO. Annexes 19 to 21 of the Complaint confirm these allegations.
While the trademark BRADESCO has been used for decades to identify the services provided by the Complainant, trademark BRADESCOMPLETO has been extensively used in advertising campaigns, as states annexes 31 and 32 of the Complaint. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant is the owner of registrations worldwide for the mark BRADESCO. Besides, the Complainant also owns registration in Brazil for the trademark BRADESCOMPLETO, which is incorporated in the disputed domain name.
The Trademark BRADESCOMPLETO is associated with a full range of banking services provided by the Complainant and has been largely used in Brazil since its launch in 2005.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name, which virtually reproduces the trademark BRADESCOMPLETO, registered by the Complainant. The disputed domain name also reproduces the Complainant main trademark, BRADESCO.
As stated by the documents presented, the registration and use of the trademarks BRADESCO and BRADESCOMPLETO predates the registration of the disputed domain name. Further, being a Brazilian citizen and having his address in Brazil, it is curious to suppose that the Respondent had never heard of the Complainant or of its marks – being the Complainant the third largest bank in the country and active for more than 6 decades.
The Complainant has addressed an e-mail and a warning letter to the Respondent, which were never answered. Also warning e-mails were addressed the concerned registrar, requesting the disputed domain name to be blocked.
Accessing the disputed domain name leads to a blank page. Nevertheless, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name, added by a determined termination, was used on phishing scams to obtain personal data bank from third parties.
Lastly it was stated that the Respondent does not own a trademark registration or a pending application, either concerning the expression BRADECOMPLETO or any other one.
In sum, the Complainant alleges that the registration and use of the disputed domain name is intentional to mislead Internet users by leading them to phishing scams and is clear that the Respondent has no rights in the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is, indeed, confusingly similar to the BRADESCO and BRADESCOMPLETO trademarks.
The Complainant has presented consistent evidence of ownership of the trademarks BRADESCO and BRADESCOMPLETO in the world, by presenting an extensive list of international registrations for the first sign and copies of the Brazilian registration for the second one, as well as comprehensive evidence of the use of both signs.
The use of the trademarks suppressed from an “s” in the disputed domain name does not differentiates it from the trademarks – on the contrary, this suppression has been proven to be a common practice to mislead Internet users to a fake website. Mistyping being a common mistake, squatters normally take profit from this fact, preparing a page that might give the user the impression it is the real one that was searched.
Given the above, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademarks of the Complainant. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Given the clear evidence that the trademarks BRADESCO and BRADESCOMPLETO are registered in the Complainant’s name and are widely known as identifying the Complainant’s services, and that the Complainant has no licensed its marks to Respondent, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In the absence of a Response, the Respondent has not rebutted such prima facie case.
Besides, the Respondent is in principle domiciled in Brazil, where the Complainant has its seat and where its major operation takes place for more than sixty years. Hence, in the Panel’s opinion, the Respondent cannot claim to have been using the trademark not knowing the Complainant’s rights to it.
The use of the disputed domain name as is intentionally misleads the consumers. It is a clear attempt to benefit the renown of the mark to direct visitors to the website and to one of the phishing scams that apparently were used by the Respondent.
The Panel, thus, finds for the Complainant under the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Given the circumstances of this case, the facts outlined in sections A and B above can also evidence the Respondent’s bad faith in the registration and use of the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name was registered to clearly mislead the consumers – hence the missing “s” in the trademark. The Respondent intended to give an overall impression that the disputed domain leads to an official web site, trying to profit from the Complainant’s renowned trademark for unlawful purposes. This attempt to mislead consumers is also evidence of bad faith from the Respondent.
All the points above lead to the conclusion by this Panel that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant and that the Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has also proved the third element of the Policy. 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.
Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira
Sole Panelist
Dated: December 29, 2010
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy