The Complainant is Banco Bradesco S/A of Osasco, São Paulo, Brazil, represented by Pinheiro, Nunes, Arnaud & Scatamburlo S/C, Brazil.
The Respondent is Putu Hamsa of Bali, Indonesia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Total Web Solutions Limited trading as TotalRegistrations (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 13, 2013. On December 13, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 16, 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 18, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 7, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 8, 2014.
The Center appointed Arne Ringnes as the sole panelist in this matter on January 14, 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. 4. Factual Background
The disputed domain name was created on November 8, 2013.
The Complainant is a leading Brazilian bank. The Complainant has established presence in the entire territory of Brazil and has branches and affiliates also in New York – United States, Buenos Aires – Argentina, Grand Cayman – Cayman Islands, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, Luxembourg – Luxembourg and Tokyo – Japan.
The trademark upon which the Complaint is based is the Brazilian trademark BRADESCO with a priority date of June 13, 1979. This trademark has been declared “notorious” by the Brazilian Patents and Trademarks Office, which means that the trademark has special protection in all classes.
In addition, the Complainant is the holder of 333 other trademark registrations in Brazil incorporating the expression “Bradesco”, as well as several BRADESCO trademarks registered in other countries.
Further, the Complainant is the registered owner of i.a. , , , , and . 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark BRADESCO because the wording is nearly identical. The addition of an extra “s” at the end is not sufficient to avoid such confusion.
Further, the Complainant submits that the Respondent does not show any legitimate interest in the use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no trademark registered that consists of or contains the word “bradesco”. Further, the Complainant has not granted the Respondent any rights to use the BRADESCO trademark. The Respondent’s activities do not relate to the products commercialized under the BRADESCO trademark and the Respondent has never been known to be related or associated to this trademark.
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith for the following reasons:
(i) The website at the disputed domain name displays the following messages “Buy Domain” and “Make an Offer”. The only plausible explanation for the Respondent’s selection of the disputed domain name is to exploit in an unauthorized fashion the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant and its name and trademarks.
(ii) On December 9, 2013 the Complainant received from the Respondent an email titled “B now $10,000”, in which the Respondent stated that the Complainant should contact the Respondent as soon as possible if the Complainant was interested to purchase the disputed domain name.
(iii) Previous decisions under the Policy summons that “passive holding” of a domain name may constitute use in bad faith (PRL USA Holdings, Inc. and Ralph Lauren Media, LLC v. Morrison and Associates,WIPO Case No. D2001-0255) B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark BRADESCO.
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark, with an extra “s” added at the end of the trademark. The Panel finds that the added “s” is not sufficient to avoid confusion.
On this background, and in conclusion, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proved that the condition under the Policy, paragraph 4 (a)(i), is fulfilled. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not contested the Complainant’s allegation that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
It is generally difficult for the complainant to provide evidence that the respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. On the other hand, it would be fairly simple for the respondent to demonstrate that it has such rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. Previous decisions under the Policy have therefore found it sufficient for a complainant to make a prima facie showing of its assertion in the event of a respondent’s default.
The basis for the Panel’s decision is that the Complainant has not granted the Respondent any rights to use its trademark, and the Respondent is in no way affiliated with the Complainant. The Panel finds that the circumstances mentioned and evidenced by the Complainant, i.e. that the Respondent’s activities do not relate to the products commercialized under the BRADESCO trademark and the Respondent has never been known to be related or associated to this trademark, are sufficient to establish a prima facie showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
As the Panel cannot find any indications of the three circumstances that constitute rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4 (a)(ii) of the Policy or any other circumstances indicating such rights or legitimate interests, the Panel concludes that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel has considered the Complainant’s assertions and evidence with regard to the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. By not submitting a Response, the Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances that could demonstrate that the Respondent did not register and use the domain name at issue in bad faith.
The Panel finds it unlikely that the Respondent should not have been aware of the Complainant’s rights to “Bradesco” when registering the disputed domain name, as this trademark must be considered as widely used and known by the public. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent could not have been unaware that the registration of the disputed domain names would infringe the Complainant’s rights. The Panel finds that the fact that the Respondent sent an e-mail to the Complainant on December 9, 2013 supports that the Respondent could not have been unaware of the Complainant and its name and trademarks.
Furthermore, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name leads to a website whose content displayed includes the messages “Buy Domain” and “Make an Offer”, as well as the references to the disputed domain name itself and the company name “Bradescos Co Ltd”. The latter is not the apparent owner of the disputed domain name. Therefore, in this Panel’s assessment, the Respondent’s intention by choosing the disputed domain name would be most likely to exploit the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant and its names and trademarks. See PRL USA Holdings, Inc., and Ralph Lauren Media, LLC v. Morrison and Associates,WIPO Case No. D2001-0255. The Panel finds that the email the Complainant received from the Respondent on December 9, 2013, in which the Complainant was offered the possibility to purchase the disputed domain name, supports this finding.
For the various reasons discussed above, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, pursuant to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy. 7. Decision
For 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.
Arne Ringnes
Sole Panelist
Date: January 28, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy