The Complainant is Crédit Agricole S.A. of Montrouge Cédex, France, represented by Sodema Conseils S.A., France.
The Respondent is Donghui of Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hangzhou AiMing Network Co., LTD (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on March 17, 2015. On March 18, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 19, 2015, 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.
On March 20, 2015, the Center sent an email communication to the parties in both Chinese and English regarding the language of the proceeding. On March 23, 2015, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding by the specified due date.
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 proceeding commenced on April 1, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 21, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on April 22, 2015.
The Center appointed Jonathan Agmon as the sole panelist in this matter on May 1, 2015. 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 is Credit Agricole S.A., a French banking group, which also engages in asset management and insurance.
The Complainant provides its services worldwide to approximately 60 million clients. The Complainant operates using a network of 11,850 offices in more than 20 countries and manages 164,000 collaborators in more than 70 countries.
The Complainant owns multiple worldwide trademark registrations for the marks CREDIT AGRICOLE and CA CREDIT AGRICOLE. For example: International Trademark Registration No. 441714 – CA CREDIT AGRICOLE (logo), with the registration date of October 25, 1978, designated, among others, to Germany, Spain and Russian Federation; International Trademark Registration No. 525634 – CA CREDIT AGRICOLE (logo), with the registration date of July 13, 1988, designated, among others, to Switzerland, Czech Republic, Russian Federation, Spain and Sweden; Chinese Trademark Registration No. 526081 – CA CREDIT AGRICOLE (logo), with the registration date of October 8, 2010; Chinese Trademark Registration No. 6991430– CREDIT AGRICOLE, with the registration date of July 7, 2010; Chinese Trademark Registration No. 6991431 – CREDIT AGRICOLE, with the registration date of August 28, 2010, and others.
The Complainant has also developed its presence on the Internet and is the owner of multiple domain names, which consist of its CREDIT AGRICOLE trademark: , , , , and more.
The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on April 13, 2014.
The disputed domain name resolves to a parking website with links to the Complainant's competitors. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant argues the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its widely known CREDIT AGRICOLE trademark.
The Complainant further argues the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com" is not sufficient to avoid the identity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's CREDIT ARICOLE trademark.
The Complainant further argues the Respondent is not affiliated with it nor authorized by it to use the CREDIT AGRICOLE trademark.
The Complainant further argues the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that the Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainant's business.
The Complainant further argues that the Respondent failed to prove a legitimate use of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant further argues the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of its trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE.
The Complainant further argues that the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a parking page offering banking and financial services competitive with those of the Complainant constitutes bad faith use.
For all of the above reasons, the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Procedural Issue – Language of the Proceedings
Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that:
"Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding."
The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese.
The Complainant requested that the language of proceedings be English.
The Panel cites the following with approval:
"Thus, the general rule is that the parties may agree on the language of the administrative proceeding. In the absence of this agreement, the language of the Registration Agreement shall dictate the language of the proceeding. However, the Panel has the discretion to decide otherwise having regard to the circumstances of the case. The Panel's discretion must be exercised judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties taking into consideration matters such as command of the language, time and costs. It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her abilities to articulate the arguments for the case." (Groupe Auchan v. xmxzl,WIPO Case No. DCC2006-0004).
In deciding the language of the proceeding, the Panel takes the following into consideration:
a) The disputed domain name consists of Latin characters, rather than Chinese characters;
c) The disputed domain name resolves to a website operating and displaying content in English;
d) The Respondent did not object to the Complainant's request that English be the language of the proceeding.
Upon considering the above, the Panel concludes, according to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), that there is no prejudice or unfairness to the Respondent for these proceedings to be conducted in English and for its decision to be rendered in English. Accordingly, the Panel determines that the language of this administrative proceeding be English. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certificate belong to its respective owner.
The Complainant owns multiple worldwide trademark registrations for the marks CREDIT AGRICOLE and CA CREDIT AGRICOLE. For example: International Trademark Registration No. 441714 – CA CREDIT AGRICOLE (logo), with the registration date of October 25, 1978, designated, among others, to Germany, Spain and Russian Federation; International Trademark Registration No. 525634 – CA CREDIT AGRICOLE (logo), with the registration date of July 13, 1988, designated, among others, to Switzerland, Czech Republic, Russian Federation, Spain and Sweden; Chinese Trademark Registration No. 526081 – CA CREDIT AGRICOLE (logo), with the registration date of October 8, 2010; Chinese Trademark Registration No. 6991430– CREDIT AGRICOLE, with the registration date of July 7, 2010; Chinese Trademark Registration No. 6991431 – CREDIT AGRICOLE, with the registration date of August 28, 2010, and others.
The disputed domain name integrates the Complainant's CREDIT AGRICOLE trademark, as a dominant element. The disputed domain name differs from the CREDIT AGRICOLE trademark by the deletion of the letter "t", the addition of a hyphen and the additional gTLD suffix ".com".
The addition of the gTLD ".com" to the disputed domain name does not avoid confusing similarity (see, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A.,WIPO Case No. D2006-0451 and Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003). Thus, the gTLD ".com" is without legal significance since the use of a gTLD is technically required to operate the domain name.
Also, the fact that the disputed domain name does not include the letter "t" and includes a hyphen does not avoid confusing similarity.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Once the Complainant establishes a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name. Paragraph 2.1, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0").
In the present case, the Complainant has demonstrated that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and the Respondent had failed to assert any such rights or legitimate interests.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case in this regard, inter alia due to the fact that the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the CREDIT AGRICOLE trademark, or a variation thereof.
The Respondent has not submitted a Response and did not provide any evidence to show any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name that is sufficient to rebut the Complainant's prima facie case.
In this case, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking webpage. The parking page offers pay-per-click ("PPC") links to services associated with the business of the Complainant, namely banking services. The mere parking of the disputed domain name and the use of a PPC page dos not of itself confers any rights or legitimate interests to the Respondent. Such use of the disputed domain name does not comprise "bona fide offering of goods and services" under the Policy.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant must show that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii)). Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides circumstances that may prove bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii).
The Complainant submitted evidence, which shows that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name after the Complainant registered its trademark. According to the evidence filed by the Complainant and the trademark search performed by the Panel, the Complainant owns a registration for the CA CREDIT AGRICOLE trademark since the year 1978. It is suggestive of the Respondent's bad faith registration in these particular circumstances that the trademark, owned by the Complainant, was registered long before the registration of the disputed domain name (Sanofi-Aventis v. Abigail Wallace,WIPO Case No. D2009-0735).
Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy provides that it will be evidence of bad faith registration and use by a respondent, if by using the domain name it has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the websites or other on-line locations to which the disputed domain name resolves, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the websites or locations or of a product or service on the websites or locations to which the domain name resolves.
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks. Previous UDRP panels have found that "a likelihood of confusion is presumed, and such confusion will inevitably result in the diversion of Internet traffic from the Complainant's site to the Respondent's site" (see E, Inc. v. Triple E Holdings Limited,WIPO Case No. D2006-1095). To this end, prior UDRP panels have established that attracting Internet traffic by using a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark may be evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP.
As noted previously, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking webpage with PPC links to the Complainant's competitors. The parking page also includes a notice stating that "[t]he Sponsored Listings displayed above are served automatically by a third party. Neither the service provider nor the domain owner maintains any relationship with the advertisers. In case of trademark issues please contact the domain owner directly (contact information can be found in WhoIs)". The use of the notice does not assist the Respondent. By the time Internet users reach the parking webpage under the disputed domain name they have already been confused to think or associate the disputed domain name with the trademark of the Complainant and therefore confusion has already occurred. The later use of a disclaimer on the parking page just serves to show that the Respondent is aware of the possibility that Internet users will be confused as a result of the use of the disputed domain name as a parking page. Such use is a further evidence of the Respondent's bad faith use of the disputed domain name.
In the present case, taking into consideration the goodwill the Complainant achieved in its trademark, which was acknowledged in Credit Agricole S.A. v. Dick Weisz,WIPO Case No. D2010-1683, and the fact that the Complainant's trademark is neither a common noun, nor a common name and the fact that the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark as a whole, it is determined by the Panel that the parking of the disputed domain name by the Respondent is considered bad faith.
Based on the evidence presented to the Panel, including the recent registration of the disputed domain name that postdates the Complainant's trademarks, the parking of the disputed domain name by the Respondent, the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name to the Complainant's marks, the use of a disclaimer showing the Respondent was aware of the possibility of Internet user being confused, the Panel draws the inference that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Accordingly, having regard to the circumstances of this particular case, the Panel finds that the Complainant has met its burden 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.
Jonathan Agmon
Sole Panelist
Date: May 17, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy