The Complainant is Financo S.A. of Guipavas, France, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is Cachetel Fiossi, Association of Abomey, Benin. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 23, 2019. On January 23, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 24, 2019, 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. In reply to a Complaint Deficiency Notification sent by the Center, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint on January 25, 2019.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 28, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 17, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 18, 2019.
The Center appointed Benoit Van Asbroeck as the sole panelist in this matter on March 4, 2019. 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 financial company, subsidiary of Crédit Mutuel Arkéa, specialized in manufacturing and distributing tailored financial solutions to individual projects.
The Complainant is the owner of the trademarks containing or comprising FINANCO. These registrations include:
- French trademark PREFERENCE FINANCO with registration No. 3385073, registered on October 11, 2005, in International classes 7, 9, 35, 36, 38 and 42;
- French design trademark FINANCO with registration No. 3747380, registered on June 18, 2010, in International classes, 9, 16, 35, 36, 38 and 42;
- French trademark E-COFFRE FINANCO with registration No. 3752546, registered on July 9, 2010, in International classes 36 and 38.
Additionally, the Complainant is also the registrant of numerous domain names such as and , containing the FINANCO trademark.
The disputed domain name was registered on November 17, 2018, well after the Complainant secured rights to the trademarks. The disputed domain name resolves to a website offering loan and consumer credit. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in the present case, as follows:
(a) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
Relying on Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin,WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, the Complainant contends that by incorporating the Complainant’s FINANCO trademark in its entirety, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
Additionally, the Complainant claims that the mere adjunction of the generic term “world” does not negate the confusingly similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark.
Finally, the Complainant refers to previously rendered UDRP decisions (see Financo v. Mockel Haary,WIPO Case No. D2018-1767 and Financo v. Ben Taurins,WIPO Case No. D2018-1559) which recognized the Complainant’s right over the term FINANCO.
(b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant asserts that it has rights in FINANCO and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The Respondent is and was not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, the Complainant has never authorized or licensed the Respondent to register and use the disputed domain name. Neither does the Respondent have an affiliation or a business with the Complainant.
The Respondent is not making a legitimate, noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain name as it offers and attempts to market a competing website providing tailored financial solutions.
The Complainant further submits that the Respondent is not commonly known by the name “Financo” as it identifies itself in the legal notices on the website at the disputed domain name. After some research on “Financo”, the Complainant discovered that the alleged company’s corporate headquarters indicated to be in Paris, France did not exist. The alleged company is not even present on the French Commercial and Companies Register.
(c) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location with services competing with those of the Complainant, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith for the following reason: the term “financo” has no meaning in any language.
Finally, the Complainant argues that the Respondent should have been aware of the FINANCO trademark when filling the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to establish the two following elements: (1) that it has trademark rights, and, if so, (2) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark(s).
First of all, this Panel finds that the Complainant has clearly evidenced that it has registered trademark rights in FINANCO. The Panel particularly agrees with the Complainant that its rights over the term FINANCO can be inferred from previously decided UDRP decisions.
Secondly, the disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s FINANCO trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
Thirdly, this Panel finds, similarly to other UDRP panels, that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded.
Fourthly, this Panel finds that the addition of the term “world” does not constitute an element so as to avoid confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy.
On the basis of the foregoing findings, and according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, this Panel finds and concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FINANCO trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists circumstances, in particular but without limitation, which, if found by the Panel to be proved, demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy reads:
“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 your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your 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) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”
This Panel finds that there is no evidence that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
It is a well-established view of the UDRP panels, with which this Panel agrees, that a prima facie case advanced by the complainant is generally sufficient for the complainant to satisfy the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, provided that the respondent does not submit any evidence to the contrary (AGUAS DE CABREIROA, S.A.U. v. Hello Domain,WIPO Case No. D2014-2087; Spigen Korea Co., Ltd., Spigen Inc. v. Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp.,WIPO Case No. D2016-0145; HubSpot, Inc. v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Steve Johnson,WIPO Case No. D2016-1338).
In the present case, taking into consideration the default of the Respondent, this Panel finds that the Complainant has submitted a sufficient prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, in view of the circumstances of this case, including the following factors:
- there is no evidence that the Respondent has commonly been known by the disputed domain name;
- there is no evidence that the Respondent has been authorized or licensed to use the disputed domain name by the Complainant; and
- there is no evidence that legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name has taken place.
In fact, as set out in more detail below, this Panel believes, after having examined the evidence submitted by the Complainant, that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intention of attracting visitors looking for the Complainant’s website to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy identifies, in particular but without limitation, four circumstances which, if found by this Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy reads:
“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.”
Each of the four circumstances in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, if found, would be an instance of “registration and use of a domain name in bad faith”.
The disputed domain name resolves to a website that directly competes with the Complainant by offering the same services to Internet users. This may confuse Internet users and attract them to the Respondent’s website, thus disrupting the Complainant’s business, which supports a finding that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name is bad faith under Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Given the Complainant’s trademark is an invented word with no meaning in any language apart from in relation to the Complainant’s service and that the Complainant is well known for its financial services, it cannot be a mere coincidence that the Respondent has chosen the disputed domain name.
The Panel also finds that the Respondent’s failure to reply to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter and to submit a Response amount to additional circumstances evidencing the Respondent’s bad faith.
Finally, with regard to the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, this Panel believes bad faith may be found where the Respondent knew or should have known of the registration and use of the FINANCO trademark prior to registering the disputed domain name. Such is true in the present case in which the Respondent registered the disputed domain name after the Complainant obtained its trademark registrations for the FINANCO trademark.
In light of the foregoing, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith under 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.
Benoit Van Asbroeck
Sole Panelist
Date: March 18, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy