The Complainant is Crédit Industriel et Commercial of Paris, France, represented by Meyer & Partenaires, France.
The Respondent is Lin Shi Mo Ban of Chengdu, Sichuan, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on February 24, 2017. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 25, 2017, 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 8, 2017, the Center sent an email communication to the parties in both Chinese and English regarding the language of the proceeding. On March 13, 2017, the Center noted the Complainant's request in the filed Complaint for English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.
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 March 20, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 9, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on April 10, 2017.
The Center appointed Matthew Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on April 20, 2017. 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 a French bank. The initials of the Complainant's corporate name are "CIC". The Complainant has registered trademarks in multiple jurisdictions, including French trademark registration number 1358524 for CIC, registered from June 10, 1986, specifying banking and other services in classes 35 and 36; and European Union trademark registration number 005891411 for CIC, registered from March 5, 2008, specifying bank cards, financial affairs and other goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35 and 36. Those trademark registrations remain in effect. The Complainant has also registered the domain name and uses it in connection with its official website, where it provides information about its services and offers its clients online access to their bank accounts.
The Respondent's name is listed in the Registrar's WhoIs database as Lin Shi Mo Ban. This name is a transcription of four Chinese characters that mean "temporary template". The Respondent uses a privacy protection service. The Respondent's contact address is in China.
The disputed domain name was registered on July 16, 2015. It is parked at a landing page displaying links to websites of the Complainant and other financial services providers. The landing page displays a notice that reads: "Buy this domain. The owner of is offering it for sale for an asking price of 2999 USD!". 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's CIC trademark. The generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") suffix does not affect the confusing similarity. The gTLD suffix ".site" could be commonly perceived as referring to the Complainant's official website.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainant's business. The Respondent is not currently and has never been known under the name "CIC". No licence or authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use, or apply for registration, of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a parking webpage in the financial field which offers the domain for sale for USD 2,999 which cannot be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant has a strong reputation in the CIC trademark related with banking services and it is established in China, where the Respondent is apparently located. The Respondent could not have been unaware of the reputation of the CIC brand at the time that it registered the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a parking webpage with links to the Complainant and its competitors. CIC is neither a common noun nor a common name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language of the Proceeding
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 Registrar confirmed that the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is in Chinese.
The Complainant requests that the language of the proceeding be English. Its main arguments are that the disputed domain name is composed of Latin characters and that translation of the Complaint into Chinese would cause additional cost and delay. The Respondent did not comment on the language request.
Paragraph 10(b) and (c) of the Rules require the Panel to ensure that the Parties are treated with equality, that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case and that the administrative proceeding take place with due expedition. Prior UDRP panels have noted that the choice of language of the proceeding should not create an undue burden for the parties. See, for example, Solvay S.A. v. Hyun-Jun Shin,WIPO Case No. D2006-0593; Whirlpool Corporation, Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v. Hui'erpu (HK) electrical appliance co. ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2008-0293.
The Panel observes that the Complaint in this proceeding was filed in English. Having received notice of the Complainant and commencement of the proceeding in Chinese and English, the Respondent has expressed no interest in responding to the Complaint or otherwise participating in this proceeding. Therefore, the Panel considers that requiring the Complainant to translate the Complaint into Chinese would create an undue burden and delay.
Having considered all the circumstances above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of this proceeding is English. 6.2 Substantive Issues
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that a complainant must prove each of the following elements:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the CIC trademark.
The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant's CIC trademark as its only distinctive element. The disputed domain name also includes the gTLD suffix ".site". A gTLD suffix generally has no capacity to dispel confusing similarity between a domain name and a trademark for the purposes of the Policy. See Lego Juris A/S v. Chen Yong,WIPO Case No. D2009-1611; Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. zhanglei,WIPO Case No. D2014-0080. In this case, the gTLD suffix is ".site", which is merely a generic description of what a domain name can resolve to and does not dispel confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trademark.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out the following circumstances which, without limitation, if found by the panel, shall demonstrate that the respondent has rights to, or legitimate interests in, a disputed domain name, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:
(i) before any notice to [the respondent] of the dispute, [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; or
(ii) [the respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) [has] been commonly known by the [disputed] domain name, even if [the respondent 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 Panel has already found that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's CIC trademark. The Complainant submits that the Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainant's business and that no licence or authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use, or apply for registration, of the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name is parked at a landing page that displays links to websites, some of which promote the services of the Complainant's competitors. The landing page also offers the disputed domain name for sale. Those are not uses of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as envisaged by the first circumstance of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.
The Respondent's name is supposedly "Lin Shi Mo Ban", not "cic". There is no evidence indicating that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name as envisaged by the second circumstance of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.
The disputed domain name is parked at a landing page that displays links to commercial websites and that offers the disputed domain name for sale. Those are not legitimate noncommercial or fair uses of the disputed domain name as envisaged by the third circumstance of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.
Based on the above, the Panel considers that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent did not rebut that case because it did not respond to the Complaint.
Therefore, based on the record of this proceeding, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has satisfied the second element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that certain circumstances shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. The first and fourth of these are as follows:
"(i) circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered or [the respondent has] 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 [the respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
"(iv) by using the [disputed] domain name, [the Respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the Respondent's] 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 [the Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [the Respondent's] web site or location."
With respect to registration, the Panel observes that the disputed domain name, apart from the gTLD suffix, is identical to the Complainant's CIC trademark. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name many years after the Complainant registered its trademark. The disputed domain name is parked at a landing page that displays links to websites, including those of the Complainant and its competitors, based on its trademark value. This gives the Panel reason to believe that the Respondent deliberately chose to register the Complainant's trademark in the disputed domain name in bad faith.
With respect to use, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name is parked at a landing page that offers the disputed domain name for sale for a price of USD 2,999. This price is in excess of the Respondent's out‑of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name. Consequently, the Panel finds that the facts of this case satisfy the requirements of paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy.
Further, the Respondent uses the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant's CIC trademark, for a webpage that displays links to other websites, some of which offer financial services unrelated to the Complainant. Customers searching for the Complainant's "CIC" services are likely to be attracted to this webpage and potentially diverted to sites offering services of the Complainant's competitors. This use is intentional and either for the Respondent's own commercial gain, if it is paid to direct traffic to those websites, or for the commercial gain of the operators of those websites. In either scenario, these facts satisfy the requirements of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See Express Scripts, Inc. v. Windgather Investments Ltd. / Mr. Cartwright,WIPO Case No. D2007-0267.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant has satisfied the third element in 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.
Matthew Kennedy
Sole Panelist
Date: April 22, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy