The Complainant is Banco Bradesco S/A of Osasco, Brazil, represented by Pinheiro, Nunes, Arnaud & Scatamburlo S/C, Brazil.
The Respondent is Nano Solutions of São Paulo, Brazil. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on May 15, 2014. On May 15, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 16, 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 21, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 10, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on June 11, 2014.
The Center appointed Erica Aoki as the sole panelist in this matter on June 12, 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.
The language of the administrative proceeding is English. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant, one of the leading private banks in Brazil with more than 25 million accounts was established in 1943 as Banco Brasileiro De Descontos and is presently using the denomination of Banco Bradesco S/A.
The Complainant has more than eight-thousand four-hundred service points, four-thousand six hundred branches, over three-thousand seven-hundred service posts, more than one thousand four-hundred Automated Teller Machines (ATMs), more than forty-three thousand "Bradesco Expresso" (in English, "Bradesco Express") ATMs, over thirty four thousand eight-hundred "Bradesco Dia & Noite" (in English, "Bradesco Day & Night") ATMs, and more than twelve-thousand nine-hundred shared ATMs known as "Banco24horas" (in English, "Bank24hours"). Finally, the Complainant has branches and affiliates all over Brazil and also in New York – USA, Buenos Aires – Argentina, Grand Cayman – Cayman Islands (Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Luxembourg – Luxembourg and Tokyo – Japan.
Complainant's trademark "BRADESCO" was filed in Brazil on June 13, 1979 and is considered a notorious (well-known) trademark by the Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial(the Brazilian Patents and Trademarks Office).
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 2, 2014. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations for BRADESCO in jurisdictions around the world.
Also, Complainant owns the domain names and , among other domains containing the term "bradesco".
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark. The disputed domain name is composed by the term "cartaodecredito", a misspelled version of "cartão de crédito" ("credit card" in Portuguese), and the BRADESCO trademark.
Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in relation to the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no trademark registered that consists of or contains the word "bradesco". The Complainant has not granted on 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.
Finally, the website at the disputed domain name identifies itself, without the Complainant's authorizations, as "Cartão de Crédito Bradesco - Informações sobre cartão de crédito Bradesco", which stands for "Bradesco's credit card – Information about Bradesco's credit card". Moreover, on the website there is a post criticizing the Complainant's Bradesco Cartões. Despite of the post, there is an acknowledgement that reads as follows: "in special the Bradesco's credit card, one of the most known in Brazil". In light of these circumstances, the Complainant argues that the only plausible explanation for the selection of the disputed domain name by the Respondent was to exploit in an unauthorized fashion the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant and its names and marks.
To conclude, the Complainant contends that bad faith can be deduced by the fact that the BRADESCO mark is the major component of the disputed domain name and that it would be almost impossible for someone to claim having registered said mark as a domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In the Panel's view, the Complainant has satisfied 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 disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the facts presented by the Complainant, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights, as required under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark, as the disputed domain name includes the Complainant's BRADESCO mark in full with the addition of the nondistinctive suffix "cartoes de credito". B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds the following on the record in this Policy proceeding:
- The Respondent is in default and thus has made no affirmative attempt to show any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name;
- The Policy indicates that a registrant may have a right or 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 Respondent's knowledge of the Complainant's right is presumed since BRADESCO is a well-known trademark;
- The Respondent is in no way connected with the Complainant and has no authorization to use any of the Complainant's trademarks; and
- 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, in the Panel's view, the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no 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.
Further, the Panel notes that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use activity.
The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because the Respondent is using the disputed domain name intentionally to attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent's website or other online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the respondent's site or of a product or service offered on the Respondent's site. Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv).
In the Panel's view, there is no doubt that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's rights in the BRADESCO mark at the time the disputed domain name was registered, indicating that such registration was made in bad faith.
The Complainant was capable to demonstrate that the website at the disputed domain name displayed a criticism post relating to Complainant's activities. In accordance with the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0"), paragraph 2.4, the Panel notes that the website in fact displayed third party commercial links. As such, the use by the Respondent of the disputed domain name does not appear to be genuine, noncommercial criticism.
Even though there was a disclaimer on the website, in the Panel's assessment, this use can mislead Internet users for commercial gain by profiting from the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trademark. In this connection, the Panel also notes that the website at the disputed domain name displayed links that appear to relate to Complainant's clients' credit card balance. In the Panel's view, this allows the conclusion that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intention of obtaining improper benefit by diverting Internet users seeking information about the Complainant and, therefore, generating traffic to its website, and/or harming the Complainant's reputation in the market and/or disrupting the Complainant's business.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, under paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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.
Erica Aoki
Sole Panelist
Date: June 16, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy