The Complainant is Banco Bradesco S/A of Osasco, São Paulo, Brazil, represented by Pinheiro, Nunes, Arnaud & Scatamburlo S/C, Brazil.
The Respondent is Pajeu, Paulo of Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Vitalwerks Internet Solutions, LLC DBA No-IP (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on August 12, 2014. On August 13, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 19, 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 August 21, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 10, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on September 12, 2014.
The Center appointed Erica Aoki as the sole panelist in this matter on September 17, 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 – United States of America, Buenos Aires – Argentina, Grand Cayman – Cayman Islands (Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Luxembourg – Luxembourg and Tokyo – Japan.
The 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 13, 2014. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations for BRADESCO in jurisdictions around the world. The BRADESCO trademark is entitled to special protection which is assured to highly renown marks registered in Brazil, as defined in Article 125 of the Brazilian Industrial Property Law (Brazilian Law No. 9,279 of May 14, 1996).
Also, the Complainant owns the domain names and , among other domain names 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 number "1", 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.
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. The Complainant further contends that the passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent in the circumstances involves bad faith use. 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 non-distinctive prefix "1". 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, nor made any attempt to rebut the Complainant's contentions;
- 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 highly renowned 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.
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 disputed domain name is not being actively used (Annex H of the Complaint). The apparent lack of so-called active use does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith (especially when the Complainant has a well-known trademark and no response to the Complaint was filed). See, e.g., Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.
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: October 2, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy