The Complainant is Crédit Industriel et Commercial of Paris, France, represented by Meyer & Partenaires, France.
The Respondent is Hola Domains, Hola Dominios Limitada of San Jose, Costa Rica. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with DropC 987 LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on July 27, 2017. On July 28, 2017 the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 28, 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.
The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 31, 2017, inviting the Complainant to clarify discrepancies in the List of Annexes to the Complaint. On August 7, 2017 the Complainant provided a corrected List of Annexes to the Complaint by email.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the corrected List of Annexes to 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 August 9, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 29, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on September 1, 2017.
The Center appointed Charters Macdonald-Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on September 14, 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 Crédit Industriel et Commercial, a financial services group in France, founded in 1859. The Complainant registered the domain name on May 28, 1999 for the purposes of hosting a website from which to inform its clients about its services and those offered by the Complainant's group, as well as to enable its clients to manage their bank accounts online using a specific secured interface.
The Complainant has also registered the following domain names:
i. registered on March 6, 2016;
ii. registered on November 21, 2007;
iii. registered on April 5, 2006; and
iv. registered on November 21, 2007.
The Complainant is the registered proprietor of a number of trade mark registrations consisting of or including CIC in various jurisdictions, including:
i. CIC French trade mark number 1358524 registered on June 10, 1986;
ii. CIC European Union trade mark number 005891411 registered on March 5, 2008;
iii. CIC European Union trade mark number 011355328 registered on March 26, 2013;
iv. CIC BANQUES International trade mark number 585099 registered on April 10, 1992;
v. CIC BANQUES French trade mark number 1691423 registered on September 5, 1991;
vi. CIC BANQUES International trade mark number 585098 registered on April 10, 1992; and
vii. CIC BANQUES French trade mark number 1682713 registered on July 24, 1991.
The disputed domain name was registered on July 14, 2017. According to evidence submitted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name is used to host a "parking webpage" which includes hyperlinks to third-party webpages. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant asserts, inter alia, as follows:
i. that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the CIC mark in which the Complainant has rights, in particular:
- the disputed domain name comprises the Complainant's CIC mark in its entirety;
- the generic Top-level Domain ("gTLD") ".com" does not overcome the similarity with the Complainant's CIC mark; and
- the use of the CIC mark in conjunction with the French descriptive phrase "en ligne", which means "online" in English, is likely to confuse the public into believing that the disputed domain name will resolve to a website belonging to the Complainant and through which its financial services are offered.
ii. that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, in particular:
- the Respondent is not related or affiliated to the Complainant or its business;
- the Respondent is not, and has never been, known by the disputed domain name; and
- no licence or authorisation has been granted to the Respondent to make any use or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.
iii. that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, in particular:
- the disputed domain name takes advantage of the strong reputation and well-known distinctive character of the Complainant's CIC mark. The addition of "enligne" to the Complainant's CIC mark is an attempt to lead Internet users to believe that they are dealing with a website that is owned by the Complainant;
- the disputed domain name activates a "parking webpage" which contains sponsored links to the Complainant's website as well as websites of some competitors of the Complainant. The Respondent is attempting to use the disputed domain name in order to misdirect Internet users to its website for commercial gain, in bad faith; and
- email servers have been activated on the disputed domain name that would enable the Respondent to send fraudulent emails and engage in "phishing" attempts by posing as the Complainant.
The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that, in order to be entitled to the transfer of a domain name, a complainant shall prove the following three elements:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided sufficient evidence showing that it has rights in the CIC mark.
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant's CIC mark. The addition of the gTLD ".com" does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the CIC mark, and should generally be disregarded for the purpose of the assessment of identity or confusing similarity. The addition of the descriptive phrase "en ligne" does not eliminate the similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's CIC mark, but may rather suggest that the disputed domain name relates to the "online" offering of the Complainant's financial services.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has therefore established that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel notes that the Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant and no licence or authorisation has been granted to the Respondent in relation to the disputed domain name.
The Complainant's contention is that the disputed domain name activates a "parking webpage" with sponsored links to the website of the Complainant as well as to other competitors. Previous UDRP panels have noted that use of a domain name to post parking and landing pages or pay-per-click links may be permissible in some circumstances, but would not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests arising from a "bona fide offering of goods or services" or from "legitimate noncommercial or fair use" of the domain name (see section 2.9 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0")). The Panel does not consider the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to amount to a bona fide use of the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with evidence to establish its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not participated in the proceedings and has presented no evidence.
Accordingly, the Panel considers paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy satisfied and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a non-exhaustive list of circumstances which indicate that the Respondent may have registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel considers that the following circumstances indicate that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith:
(i) it is likely that the disputed domain name was registered with the knowledge of the reputation of CIC mark which the Complainant has used in relation to its financial services for many years. It is likely that the Respondent intended to take advantage of the reputation of the Complainant's mark by including the CIC mark in the disputed domain name to attract users to its website; and
(ii) the disputed domain name redirects users to a "parking webpage" with sponsored links to the website of the Complainant as well as to other competitors. This indicates that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to exploit the Complainant's CIC mark to obtain click-through revenues and to promote others' competing services; a practice which previous UDRP panels have found to constitute bad faith (see, among others, Tata Sons Limited v. TATA Telecom Inc/Tata-T, Mr Singh,WIPO Case No. D2009-0671; Archer-Daniels-Midland Company v. Wang De Bing,WIPO Case No. D2017-0363).
On the basis of the above reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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.
Charters Macdonald-Brown
Sole Panelist
Date: September 28, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy