The Complainant is Banco Bradesco S/A, Osasco - SP, Brazil, represented by Pinheiro, Nunes, Arnaud & Scatamburlo S/C, Brazil.
The Respondent is Gabriella Mende Costa, Aparecida de Goiania, Brazil. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on May 13, 2014. On May 13, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 14, 2014, 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 May 22, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 11, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on June 13, 2014.
The Center appointed Eduardo Machado as the sole panelist in this matter on July 7, 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 Complainant was established in 1943 as Banco Brasileiro de Descontos and nowadays is known as Banco Bradesco S/A and is one of the leaders in the Brazilian private banking services, running millions of bank and saving accounts. Also, there are more than eight thousand four hundred (8400) Bradesco Service Points distributed throughout the Brazilian territory as well as four thousand six hundred branches, three thousand seven hundred (3700) service posts, one thousand four hundred (1400) automated teller machines, among others. The Complaint has branches and affiliates all over Brazil and also in Argentina, Cayman Islands, Luxembourg, Japan and United States of America (the "USA").
The Complainant is the owner of three hundred and thirty three (333) trademarks incorporating the term "bradesco" before the (Brazilian National Institute of Industrial Property), including the registration No. 007.170.424 for the trademark BRADESCO registered in 1980 and successively renewed, being currently valid.
The trademark BRADESCO was declared Notorious by the Brazilian National Institute of Industrial Property under the aegis of the former law regarding industrial property in Brazil (Law No. 5.772/1971). Furthermore, the Complainant is the owner of several BRADESCO trademark registrations in thirty six other countries, including USA, United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland, China and the Russia Federation.
Also, the Complainant is the owner of several domain names including the term "Bradesco".
The disputed domain name was created on December 9, 2013. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark BRADESCO and to the other domain names previously registered by the Complainant.
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is composed of the Complainant's trademark BRADESCO with the term "complete" and "diaenoite". The term "complete" means, in English, "complete" and "diaenoite" means "day and night", making reference to the possibility of using/access to the Complainant's products and services 24 hours a day. Also, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name might lead the consumers to believe that it is connected to one of Complainants websites, which is not true.
The Complainant argues that there is no trademark registered by the Respondent that consists or contains the word "bradesco" or that it has any rights in an unregistered mark.
The Complainant also affirms that it has not entered into any agreement, authorization or license with the Respondent with respect to the use of the trademark BRADESCO.
The Complainant states that "Bradesco" is not a generic or descriptive term and is not a dictionary word either in Portuguese, English, French or Italian. The term is a coined word created by the adjunction of the first letters of the Complainant's previous commercial name, i.e.: Banco BRAsileiro de DESCOntos, and, as far as it is known, the Respondent activities are not related to the services commercialized under the BRADESCO trademark and that the Respondent has never been known to be related or associated to said mark. Also, the term "Bradesco" does not appear in the Respondent's denomination or any other identification.
The Complainant states that the Respondent seems to have no legitimate interests in the domain name since there is no webpage related to the disputed domain name. Since there is no reference to the Respondent's activities or services, the Complainant concludes that the only plausible explanation for the Respondent's selection of the disputed domain name is to exploit in an unauthorized manner the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant and its name and trademarks.
The Complainant affirms that the bad faith of the Respondent can be deduced since the disputed domain name used the trademark BRADESCO as the major component of the disputed domain name, in circumstances in which the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the mark.
The Complainant states that bad faith can also be given by inaction or "passive holding".
The Complainant affirms that the trademark BRADESCO is so widely used and known by the public that it would be almost impossible for someone to claim having registered said trademark as a domain name had it not been in absolute bad faith.
The Complainant cites the following UDRP cases involving domain names incorporating the trademark BRADESCO: Banco Bradesco S/A v. Belcanto Investment Group Limited, WIPO Case No. D2013-1048 (); Banco Bradesco S/A v. CPSTA LTDA, WIPO Case No. D2013-1280 (); Banco Bradesco S/A v. Antonio Altiere,WIPO Case No. D2013-1278 () Banco Bradesco S/A v. Javenaldo,WIPO Case No. D2013-1056 () Banco Bradesco S/A v. Pedro Souza,WIPO Case No. D2013-1062 () Banco Bradesco S/A v. Erick Reis, WIPO Case No. D2013-1065 () Banco Bradesco S/A v. Jonas Silva ,WIPO Case No. D2013-1052 () Banco Bradesco S/A v. Larisa Sardinha,WIPO Case No. D2013-1051 () Banco Bradesco S/A v. Compevo,WIPO Case No. D2013-1059 () Banco Bradesco S/A v. Belcanto Investment Group, WIPO Case No. D2013-1279 (). 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 BRADESCO trademark. The addition of generic words such as "completo" and "diaenoite" to the trademark are not enough to escape a finding of confusing similarity. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has alleged that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name.
With respect to the paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, there is no evidence that the Respondent, before any notice of the dispute, used the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
With respect to the paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, there is no evidence that indicates that the Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name,
With respect to the paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, Respondent has not made or is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
In view of the above, the Panel finds that Complainant has established the second condition of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally registered the disputed domain name, which reproduces the Complainant's famous trademark BRADESCO, in bad faith. The Respondent is located in Brazil, where the Complainant and its trademarks are well known. By the time the disputed domain name was registered, it was highly unlikely that the Respondent did not know of the Complainant's rights on the trademark BRADESCO.
The Complainant's allegations of bad faith were not contested since the Respondent did not reply to the Complaint. The evidence provided by the Complainant confirms that it had long been using its BRADESCO trademark when the disputed domain name was registered, including in domain names highly similar to the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant's trademark when it registered the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. The Panel finds the passive holding of the disputed domain name in the circumstances of this case to amount to use in bad faith.
Therefore, the Panel finds the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith and that Complainant has established the third element of the Paragraph 4(a) 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.
Eduardo Machado
Sole Panelist
Date: July 21, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy