The Complainant is Caceis Bank, France, represented by Gevers Legal NV, Belgium.
The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1244538143, Canada / Timothy Hamilton, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Google LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 13, 2019. On June 13, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On June 13, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 18, 2019 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 18, 2019.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with 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 June 19, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 9, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 16, 2019.
The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on July 25, 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 bank dedicated to asset managers, banks, institutional and corporate clients. As a subsidiary of group Crédit Agricole S.A., it offers a range of services covering execution, clearing, depositary and custody, fund administration, fund distribution and other related services. Its activities are carried out through offices located across Europe, North America and Asia.
The Complainant has registered the trademark CACEIS in numerous jurisdictions around the world, such as European Union (“EU”) registration No. 004643573, registered on February 26, 2008, and EU registration no. 005770391 (figurative mark), both in connection with services from class 36. It has also international registrations such as registration No. 879274 designating amongst others Benelux, Switzerland, Spain, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States in connection with services from classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42. The Complainant uses CACEIS as its trade name in Europe, Canada, the United States, China and Hong Kong, China.
According to the Registrar, the Respondent registered the Domain Name on May 21, 2019. At the time of filing the Complaint, and at the time of drafting the Decision, the Domain Name resolved to an error page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant provides evidence of trademark registrations. The Complainant argues that the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark, only with the addition of the letter “s” between the letters “ca” and “ceis”. This is an obvious and intentional misspelling of the trademark.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and it is not possible to see a plausible circumstance in which the Respondent could legitimately use the Domain Name. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name, sending emails to fool the Complainant’s customers to transfer money to a wrong account, cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Complainant believes the said emails prove that the Respondent was aware of the fact that it incorporated the Complainant’s trademark. It is clear evidence of both bad faith registration and use. Furthermore, the Respondent’s use of proxy services and false name/address when registering the Domain Name, support a finding of bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark CACEIS.
The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark, with the addition of the letter “s” between the letters “ca” and “ceis”. The Panel agrees with the Complainant that this is likely to be an intentional misspelling of the trademark, in particular taking into account the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name for phishing purposes.
When assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that is has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register a domain name containing the Complainant’s trademark or otherwise make use of the mark. Based on the evidence, the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired unregistered rights. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name for phishing purposes is not bona fide.
The Panel finds the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Based on the evidence, in particular the Respondent’s phishing attempts, the Panel finds it likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant when he registered the Domain Name.
Phishing is also clear evidence of bad faith use, see section 3.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. The use of a privacy protection service, and the fact that the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions, further point to bad faith.
For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is used in bad faith, within the meaning of 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 Domain Name, be transferred to the Complainant.
Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: August 1, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy