The Complainant is CACEIS (Société Anonyme) of Paris, France, represented by Gevers, Belgium.
The Respondent is Joycelyn Courtat of Paris, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom, Inc. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on January 6, 2016. On January 6, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 7, 2016, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 21, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 10, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on February 15, 2016.
The Center appointed Marie-Emmanuelle Haas as the sole panelist in this matter on February 17, 2016. 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, CACEIS (member of the Crédit Agricole Group) is a banking group dedicated to institutional and corporate clients (Annex 4).
Through offices across Europe, North America and Asia, CACEIS delivers a comprehensive set of services covering: depositary/trustee custody, fund administration, transfer agency and issuer services.
CACEIS is one of the world's leading asset servicing providers and is the premier player in the sizeable French market.
CACEIS is present in many countries worldwide: France, Germany, Luxembourg, Ireland, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland, United States of America, Canada, Hong Kong, United-Kingdom and Italy (Annex 5).
CACEIS is the owner of the trademark CACEIS in many countries, in particular the following trademarks:
- Community trademark CACEIS No. 004643573, filed on September 21, 2005 and registered on February 26, 2008 and duly renewed in 2015, in class 36,
- US Trademark CACEIS filed via International Registration No. 0879274 on April 18, 2008 and registered on September 5, 2009 under No. 3616250 in class 36,
- Hong Kong Trademark CACEIS No. 301098577 filed and registered on April 21, 2008 in class 36.
The disputed domain name was registered on June 9, 2015 in the name of Joycelyn Courtat, domiciled in Paris. There is no information on its use. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant has clearly established rights in the CACEIS trademark.
The disputed domain name reproduces entirely the Complainant's trademark CACEIS.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name under a false name.
Indeed, the name of the Respondent, Joycelyn Courtat, is highly similar with the name of an actual employee of the CACEIS group, Jocelyn Courtat.
The first name "Joycelyn" does not exist in French and the family name "Courtat" is not common.
In such circumstances, it is obvious that this choice of name has not been made by chance.
The Respondent is fully aware of the existence of the CACEIS group and wants to make people believe that the disputed domain name is linked in some manner to the Complainant.
Moreover,the Complainant wishes to underline that the Respondent may be engaged in a pattern of fraudulent registration and use of domain names.
CACEIS learnt from one of its clients that this client received a call and emails from someone, allegedly fromCACEIS' IT services, and allegedly from the email "[…]@" (but actually sent from "[…]@ "):
- one email asking for a list of the authorized ordering parties (with copies of their IDs) and a power of attorney (mentioning in the signature "CACEIS Corporate Trust", services provided by the Complainant to its clients),
- one email requesting the client to sign a CACEIS account agreement.
The email received by the client mentioned the address "[…]", but when one tried to answer the emails at stake, the email of the recipient was "[…]@" instead of "[…]@".
This CACEIS' client had doubts on the origins of these emails and thus asked CACEIS to confirm that the email actually originates from CACEIS group.
This sender of these emails (which the Complainant believes to be the Respondent), in doing so, tried to obtain by fraud sensitive information from CACEIS' clients, with an email linked with the domain name .
This domain name , has been registered, also in June 2015 and its registrant presents himself on the phone under the name of "Joycelyn Courtat" .
According to CACEIS's client, the person who answered on the phone at the telephone number indicated in the fraudulent emails, said he was called "Jocelyn Courtat".
Among the 3300 employees of CACEIS group, the appearance of a name similar to the same actual employee in relation to two domain names identically reproducing the trademark CACEIS is no coincidence.
Also, the telephone number indicated in the fraudulent emails sent from the email "[…]@" is the same as the Respondent's contact telephone number mentioned on the WhoIs for the disputed domain name in the current proceedings.
In such circumstances, it is obvious that the Respondent has no intention to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or to make a legitimate non commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant submitted that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name under a fake name, which is similar with the name of an employee from the CACEIS group.
The disputed domain name has thus been registered in bad faith.
Regarding the disputed domain name, even if it does not currently resolve to a website, the circumstances surrounding the registration i.e.:
- the registrant used of a fake name, similar with the name of an employee of the Complainant,
- a similar fake name has been used in an attempt of fraud via the domain name ,
- said domain name and the disputed domain name both reproduce the Complainant's highly distinctive trademark,
- the fact that registrant mentioned as contact details a telephone number used for the above-mentioned attempt of fraud shows that the Respondent knew of the existence of the Complainant and of its trademarks.
It also shows that the Respondent has no intention to use the disputed domain name in good faith.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent attempts to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent's website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website.
This is corroborated by the fraudulent use made of the similar domain name , which has very likely been registered by the Respondent himself (as detailed in paragraph B).
Therefore, the Complainant argues that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
To prevail in the proceedings under the Policy, the Complainant must show that the three requirements set forth in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are met. Those requirements are:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Likewise, under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the Respondent can demonstrate its rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in its response to the Complaint by proving, among others, the circumstances mentioned under this paragraph of the Policy. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has clearly established rights in the CACEIS trademark.
The disputed domain name reproduces entirely the Complainant's trademark CACEIS.
The generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".pro", derived from "professional", lets Internet users believe that the disputed domain name was registered for professional purposes.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. The condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
As set forth by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate the Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, its use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint. Consequently it did not provide any evidence or circumstances to establish that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, according to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.
In the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that this constitutes a clear acknowledgment that it has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
There are converging facts that prove the absence of legitimate right or interests:
- the name of the Respondent, Joycelyn Courtat, is highly similar with the name of an actual employee of the CACEIS group, Jocelyn Courtat,
- the first name "Joycelyn" does not exist in French and the family name Courtat is not common,
- this same name Jocelyn Courtat was given to the Complainant's client when calling the person that sent him the fraudulent email from the address " […]@", whereas, when one tried to answer the emails at stake, the email of the recipient was "[…]@" instead of "[…]@",
- the phone number mentioned on the WhoIs of the disputed domain name is the same as the one mentioned on the fraudulent email sent to the Complainant's client.
In such circumstances, it is obvious that the choice of this registrant's name has not been made by chance.
The Respondent is fully aware of the existence of the CACEIS group and wants to make people believe that the domain name is linked in some manner to the Complainant.
The Respondent may be engaged in a pattern of fraudulent registration and use of domain names.
These elements demonstrate clearly a phishing scheme, which does not establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out examples of circumstances that will be considered by an Administrative Panel to be evidence of the bad faith registration and use of a domain name. It provides that:
"For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location." 1. Concerning bad faith registration of the disputed domain name
The Respondent, who is domiciled in France, was perfectly aware of the Complainant's rights on the CACEIS trademarks when registering the disputed domain name.
The organized phishing scheme practice described by the Complainant shows that the disputed domain name has been registered primarily for the purpose of defrauding the Complainant's clients into revealing personal information, and to disrupt the Complainant's business.
Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. 2. Concerning bad faith use of the disputed domain name
Even if the disputed domain name was not used for the purposes of the attempt to fraudulently obtain confidential information of a Complainant's client, the Complainant made a prima facie case that the registrant of the disputed domain name is somehow related with the registrant of the domain name .
The current apparent passive use of the disputed domain name may not be the only use of the disputed domain name but there is a very high risk that it is already being used for phishing purposes.
Based on the case file, the Panel finds that it is more likely than not that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name for phishing purposes.
This is bad faith use in the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Therefore, the condition set out by paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant. 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.
Marie-Emmanuelle Haas
Sole Panelist
Date: March 2, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy