The Complainant is Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A., (“CIC”), of Paris, France, represented by Meyer & Partenaires, France.
The Respondent is Mao Adnri of Paris, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Melbourne IT Ltd (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 11, 2013.
On December 11, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 11, 2013, the Registrar 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 December 16, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 5, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 6, 2014.
The Center appointed Christian-André Le Stanc as the sole panelist in this matter on January 15, 2014. 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.
As the language of the disputed domain name’s registration agreement is English and as the Complainant has filed its Complaint in English, the proceeding will be conducted in English, pursuant to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules. 4. Factual Background
The following facts have not been contested:
(a) The Complainant has rights in the following trademarks:
- CIC, French trademark no. 1358524 for banking activities, registered on June 25, 1976 and renewed;
- CIC, Community trademark no. 005891411;
- UNION EUROPEENNE DE CIC, International trademark no. 581464;
- CIC BANQUES, International trademark no. 585099;
- CIC BANQUES, French trademark no. 1682713, registered on July 24, 1991 and renewed.
The fame of the trademark CIC has been recognized by UDRP panels.
Furthermore, the Complainant holds many domain names among which the following:
- ;
- ;
- ;
- ;
- .
(b) The disputed domain name was registered on July 2, 2013. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant evidences its numerous previous trademarks which refer to banking and financial services and also several domain names that it owns.
The Complainant points out that the trademark CIC is a well-known mark in the field of banking and services related to banking and financial affairs.
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark CIC, which falls into the category of famous trademarks as the trademark of one of the main French banking groups.
The Complainant preliminary asserts that the generic top level domain “.com” is not of distinguishing effect.
Then, the Complainant points out that the disputed domain name integrally reproduces its trademark CIC. The sole difference between the disputed domain name and the trademark is the mere addition of the generic French word “particuliers” and a dash. The addition of such a word as a suffix does not alter the risk of confusion with a well-known trademark, according to the Complainant. On the contrary, the term “particuliers” refers specifically to a part of the Complainant’s customers, considering that the Complainant’s activities are dedicated to private individuals. The Complainant adds that Internet users could legitimately believe that the disputed domain name would lead to one of its websites dedicated to goods and services for private individuals.
The Complainant adds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as it does not correspond to his name.
The Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business: he is not one of its agents and does not carry out any activity for, or has any business with it.
No license or authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use, nor apply for registration of the disputed domain name.
At last, the Complainant is required to prove that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
First of all, the Complainant puts forward that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.
Noting the well-known character and the reputation of the trademark CIC in the field of banking and financial services, the Complainant states that the Respondent could not have ignored the trademark CIC or the Complainant at the time he applied for the registration of the confusing similar disputed domain name .
Furthermore, the Respondent appears to live in Paris, France and knows common French words (“rue”, “particuliers”) and references (“Paris”, “Alsace”), which makes even more plausible his knowledge of the Complainant and its trademarks.
Moreover, the address given by the Respondent looks false as the wrong postal code was used.
The Complainant deducts from this combination of facts the bad faith registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent.
Furthermore, the Complainant shows that there is also bad faith use of the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name was firstly used for a phishing attack against the Credit Mutuel Group (a subsidiary of the CIC Group) by reproducing its official web portal without authorization. This shows that the Respondent clearly had the intention to swindle the Complainant’s clients.
This fraudulent website has been shut down after the Complainant’s intervention against it and the disputed domain name is currently inactive. The Complainant notes that the passive holding of a domain name could be also considered as bad faith.
Moreover, the Respondent has taken active steps to conceal its true identity and has actively provided, and failed to correct false contact details, in breach of its registration agreement with the Registrar.
The Complainant concludes that this combination of facts constitutes an act of parasitism and attests the bad faith use of the disputed domain name.
For all these reasons, the Complainant considers that the Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name . B. Respondent
The Respondent did not file any Response to the Complaint and was notified of its default on January 6, 2014. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statement and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that, for a complaint to be granted, the complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) That the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) That the respondent has no rights or no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) That the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has been using the CIC trademark for decades in the area of banking and financial services. The Panel finds that this mark, owned by the Complainant, is a well-known one and the Complainant has rights in several CIC trademarks.
Previous UDRP panels have recognized the trademark CIC as well-known, notably in Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A., Banque Fédérative du Crédit Mutuel v. Headwaters MB, WIPO Case No. D2008-1892 and Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. Jeongyong Cho,WIPO Case No. D2013-1263.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the prior trademarks of the Complainant in their distinctive part - CIC -, as the addition of the term “particuliers” does not altered the risk of confusion with the trademark (see Bardόn y Rufo 67, S.L. v. Marko Mattila, Auto Katti, S.L.,WIPO Case No. D2012-1192).
In particular, this suffix does not dispel confusion here, especially because Internet users could legitimately believe that the disputed domain name would lead to one of the Complainant’s websites dedicated to private individuals, which are part of its customers.
Furthermore, the generic top level domain “.com” is not of distinguishing effect and can be ignored here.
Consequently, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark CIC. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not filed any Response to the Complaint and therefore has not alleged any facts or elements to justify rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Moreover, the Complainant maintains that the Respondent is not related in any way to its business and that no license or authorization has been granted to him to make any use, nor apply for registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has therefore established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests.
In similar circumstances, UDRP panels decided that the respondent had neither rights nor legitimate interests in the domain name (see Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. Jeongyong Cho, supra).
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 the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy indicates that certain circumstances may, “in particular but without limitation”, be evidence of bad faith. Among these circumstances are:
(i) that the domain has been registered or acquired by a respondent “primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark […] for valuable consideration in excess of [respondent’s] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name”;
(ii) that a respondent has registered the domain name “in order to prevent the owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct”.
In view of the well-known character and the reputation of the trademark CIC in the field of banking and financial services, the Panel considers that the Respondent could not have ignored this trademark at the time he applied for the registration of the confusingly similar disputed domain name (see Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. Jeongyong Cho, supra and Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel v. Philippe Marie, WIPO Case No. D2010-1513).
Moreover, the Panel notes that the Respondent appears to live in France (even if the address is obviously false) and knows some common French words and references so it is highly unlikely that he was not aware of the trademark CIC at the registration of the disputed domain name.
These elements clearly show, in the Panel’s view, bad faith at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.
Furthermore, the disputed domain name was firstly used for a phishing attack against the Credit Mutuel Group (a subsidiary of the CIC Group) by substantially reproducing its official web portal without authorization. This behavior conveys the bad faith of the Respondent who had the intention to swindle the Complainant’s clients with an unauthorized copy of the Complainant’s subsidiary’s website.
Moreover, after a successful intervention of the Complainant to shut down this fraudulent website, the disputed domain name is currently inactive. The Panel notes that the passive holding of a domain name could also be considered as bad faith (see Gary Regan v. foley, jw, NAF Claim No. 1427967 and Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Bryna Cytrynbaum, WIPO Case No. D2010-0165). In this case, the passive holding of the disputed domain name in this Panel’s view, amounts to bad faith.
Further, the Respondent has also taken active steps to conceal its true identity and has actively provided, and failed to correct, false contact details, in breach of its registration agreement.
This combination of facts constitutes therefore bad faith use of the disputed domain name.
For all these reasons, the Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name . 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(a) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Christian-André Le Stanc
Sole Panelist
Date: January 30, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy