The Complainant is Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A. of Paris, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, Strasbourg, France.
The Respondent is Xing Zhou of Xiamen, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 25, 2019. On March 25, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On March 26, 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.
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 April 4, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 24, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 25, 2019.
The Center appointed Anders Janson as the sole panelist in this matter on May 3, 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 asserted, and provided evidence in support of, the following facts, which the Panel finds established.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on December 28, 2016. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a parked webpage with links associated with the banking and financial field.
The Complainant Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A. uses the abbreviated form CIC and is a French bank founded in 1859. The Complainant operates in the credit market performing financial and administrative services and enjoys a worldwide reputation as one of the leading financial groups. The Complainant currently has over 4,7 million clients. The Complainant has more than 2,000 agencies in France and 38 agencies abroad.
The Complainant holds registrations in France and in the European Union (“EU”) regarding the trademark CIC. The Complainant owns the French Trademark CIC (wording) registered on June 10, 1986 (registration No. 1358524). The Complainant also owns EU Trademarks CIC (wording) registered on March 5, 2008 (registration No. 005891411), and CIC (figure) registered on March 26, 2013 (registration No. 011355328). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant has trademark rights and intellectual property rights to the trademark CIC. The Complainant’s trademark was registered well before the Respondent became the owner of the Disputed Domain Name and has been continuously used in commerce by the Complainant for a long time. The Complainant is using its trademark as domain names to promote its activities. Through its website the Complainant provides for its clients to have online access to their bank accounts and informs its clients of the services offered in connection with this.
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered rights as the Disputed Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s entire trademark. The associated word “support” is a generic word that cannot serve as a distinguishing feature and the addition of it to a well-known trademark in a domain name does not eliminate confusion. Such a word would even strengthen the likelihood of confusion since the word “support” can be recognized by the Complainant’s clients as one of the Complainant’s services provided. The use of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not affect the confusing similarity.
The Respondent appears to be a person based in China. The Respondent does not have any rights to the Complainant’s trademark, nor is the Respondent in any way related to the Complainant’s business. The Respondent has made no claim of using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. The Respondent is not commonly known through the Disputed Domain Name or the combination of the words “cic” and “support”. The Respondent does not own any trademarks that incorporate or are similar to the Complainant’s. The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant and the Complainant has not given the Respondent any permission to register the trademark as the Disputed Domain Name or to use or present a parked webpage with links in the banking and financial field on the website under the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights and no legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.
The Disputed Domain Name is registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant has a strong reputation in the trademark CIC in relation to banking and financial services. The notoriety of the Complainant’s trademark creates a prima facie presumption that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant or one of its competitors, or that it was intended to be used in some way to attract commercial gain through creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent could not have been ignorant of the reputation of the trademark CIC at the time of the registration of the Disputed Domain Name. The wording “cic” is distinctive and dominant in the Disputed Domain Name and the word itself is neither a descriptive nor a generic word. It is unlikely that the Respondent would have chosen the wording unless the Respondent was seeking to create an impression of association with the Complainant’s reputation. The combination of the trademark with the descriptive/generic wording “support” indicates the assistance/advice the technicians or counsels of the CIC group could provide clients and constitutes evidence of bad faith registration per se. The Disputed Domain Name resolves in to a parked webpage with several links to the Complainant’s competitors in the banking and financial field. The Disputed Domain Name is thus being used to take predatory advantage of the Complainant’s goodwill in order to divert Internet traffic to the Respondent’s website by confusing the general public. The Respondent has also activated the email servers of the Disputed Domain Name, which allows for emails to be sent and received by any email address ending with “[….]@”. This indicates that the Respondent may be taking, or plan on taking, fraudulent actions by suggesting being associated with the Complainant. Most phishing expeditions target clients of banks and online payment services, attempting to acquire sensitive information such as usernames, passwords and credit card or account details. As a banking group the Complainant is continuously facing counterfeiting/phishing expeditions and needs to protect its clients from such fraudulent actions. The surrounding circumstances support the Complainant’s contention that the Respondent is not making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name but is in fact using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.
The Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name is disturbing the Complainant’s online presence, and the Complainant requests that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Given the facts in the case file and the Respondent’s failure to file a Response, the Panel may accept as true the contentions of the Complainant. The Respondent’s default does not however automatically lead to a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant must still establish, to the Panel’s satisfaction, that it is entitled to a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name under the Policy.
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy the Complainant must establish each of the following elements:
(i) That the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) That the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and
(iii) That the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant holds registrations for the CIC trademark, as set out in section 4 above.
The Disputed Domain Name is therefore contains the Complainant’s registered trademark CIC in its entirety in combination with the word “support” that has been added to the trademark by a hyphen.
The addition of a hyphen does not bring any visual or conceptual impact to distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the Complainant’s trademark. On the contrary the hyphen assists in making the Complainant’s registered trademark CIC stand out as the dominant wording in the Disputed Domain Name.
The added word “support” is considered by the Panel to be a generic and descriptive wording. Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name, as is the case here, the addition of other words whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The added word does not change the overall impression of the Disputed Domain Name as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark and is therefore insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity.
The additional gTLD “.com” is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test.
The Panel therefore finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Since the Panel has already found that the Complainant has offered satisfactory evidence of its rights concerning the trademark CIC and has made a prima facie showing under the second element of the Policy, the burden of production has shifted to the Respondent to bring forth evidence of its rights or legitimate interests in the trademark.
The Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions. The Complainant has provided evidence that the Respondent does not own any trademark that incorporate or are similar to the Complainant’s. The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant. The Complainant has not given the Respondent any permission to register the trademark as the Disputed Domain Name or to use or present a parked webpage with links in the banking and financial field on the website under the Complainant’s trademark. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. There is no evidence that the Respondent is making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name or that the Disputed Domain Name has been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. The Respondent has not met with the burden of production that the Respondent would have a right to or legitimate interests in the trademark.
The Panel finds in favor of the Complainant, that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the trademark CIC. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant has trademark registrations in France and in EU and, in addition, the Complainant is well known for the CIC trademark that has been used by the Complainant since 1859 within the field of banking and financial services.
The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark together with the generic word “support” in 2016 and has failed to provide any arguments or reasons in response to the Complaint supporting its choice in the Disputed Domain Name.
It is not plausible that the Respondent would have been unaware of the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel therefore finds that the Disputed Domain Name was registered in bad faith, targeting the Complainant’s trademark.
According to evidence provided by the Complainant, at the time of filing the Complaint the Disputed Domain Name was being used to divert Internet users to a parking webpage with links to competitors to the Complainant within the banking and financial field. The Panel also notes that the webpage advertises a general offer to sell the Disputed Domain Name. Registering and using a domain name that reproduces without authorization the complainant’s trademark, using such domain name for a webpage which promotes third party’s goods and services, diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to the respondent’s website dilutes the value of the complainant’s mark, potentially generates unfair revenues for the respondent and ultimately constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The Panel also notes that the Complainant, a bank, is the kind of organization that has a high risk of being targeted directly or through its clients by fraudulent actions including phishing expeditions as the Complainant has contended. In light of the combined circumstances presented in this case the fact that the Respondent has configurated an email server to the Disputed Domain Name represents a real risk that the Respondent may be engaging in a fraudulent scheme, aiming to deceive the Complainant’s clients and the general public in to believing they are dealing with the Complainant. The use of the descriptive word “support” in the Disputed Domain Name enhances the likelihood of such confusion, since this indicates the services rendered by the Complainant to its client’s management of their bank accounts.
For the above reasons the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements 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.
Anders Janson
Sole Panelist
Date: May 17, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy