Complainant is Crédit Industriel et Commercial S.A., France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.
Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Lucas Ulor, simdie, Nigeria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 5, 2020. On June 8, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 8, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on June 12, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on June 16, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 23, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 13, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on July 14, 2020. The Center appointed Lorelei Ritchie as the sole panelist in this matter on August 11, 2020. 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 Complainant is a deposit bank based in France, with operations since 1859. Complainant has over 4.7 million clients, and over 2,000 agencies in France, and 38 elsewhere. Complainant uses the abbreviation “CIC” as a mark for its services, and Complainant has several registered trademarks for variants on its CIC mark. These include, among others, French Registration No. 1358524 (registered June 10, 1986, and renewed); for the mark C.I.C., and International Registration No. 585099 (registered April 10, 1992) for CIC BANQUES. Complainant owns the registration for a number of domain names that incorporate variations on its CIC mark. These include The disputed domain name Complainant contends that the (i) disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. In particular, Complainant contends that it has a “well-known” name and mark and a “strong reputation” in the field of banking. Complainant contends that it has trademark registrations for its CIC mark, including for variations such as CIC BANQUES, as well as domain name registrations for variations on these terms. Complainant contends that Respondent has merely added the generic or descriptive wording “ebank” and the geographically descriptive term “fr,” which is likely to confuse prospective online consumers into thinking that the disputed domain name is affiliated or endorsed by Complainant, with its online banking services, and its well-known location in France. Complainant further contends that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name to set up a website meant to lure in customers looking for Complainant and its online banking products and services, likely in a “phishing” scheme. Complainant further contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Rather, Complainant contends that Respondent has acted in bad faith in setting up a website, when Respondent clearly knew of Complainant’s rights. B. Respondent Respondent did not file a reply to Complainant’s contentions in this proceeding. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar This Panel must first determine whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. The Panel finds that it is. The disputed domain name directly incorporates Complainant’s registered trademark CIC, and merely adds the terms “ebank” and “fr,” which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity (see section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)). Numerous UDRP panels have agreed that supplementing or modifying a trademark with generic or descriptive words, including geographically descriptive wording, does not make a domain name any less “identical or confusingly similar” for purposes of satisfying this first prong of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, for example, Inter Ikea Systems B.V. v. Polanski,WIPO Case No. D2000-1614; General Electric Company v. Recruiters,WIPO Case No. D2007-0584; Microsoft Corporation v. Step-Web,WIPO Case No. D2000-1500; CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Y2K Concepts Corp.,WIPO Case No. D2000-1065. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Policy provides some guidance to respondents on how to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue in a UDRP dispute. For example, paragraph 4(c) of the Policy gives examples that might show rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. These examples include: (i) use of the domain name “in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services”; (ii) demonstration that Respondent has been “commonly known by the domain name”; or (iii) “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”. Respondent did not submit a reply to the Complaint, however. Rather, as mentioned in section 4 of this Panel’s decision, Respondent has used the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to a website that appears to mimic Complaint’s website but which is unaffiliated with Complainant or Complainant’s products and services, and to host a PPC website. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie showing of Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, which Respondent has not rebutted. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith There are several ways that a complainant can demonstrate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith. For example, paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy states that bad faith can be shown where “by using the domain name [respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the] website or location”. As noted in section 4 of this Panel’s decision, Respondent has set up a URL associated with the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that appears to mimic an official website of Complainant, and which attempts to confuse consumers by highlighting “Credit Industrial et Commercial Bank”, and displaying other marks owned and registered by Complainant. The website also requests web users to provide personal and financial information in the form of account number and password. Respondent is thus trading on the goodwill of Complainant’s trademarks to attract Internet users, presumably for Respondent’s own commercial gain. Given the nature of the site content and the disputed domain name which incorporates Complainant’s well-known CIC mark, with the addition of the terms “ebank” and “fr”, the Panel finds strong evidence that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s prior rights, and in particular with regard to Complainant’s banking products and services offered under the CIC mark, including via the web, and from Complainant’s long-standing location in France. See Crédit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. Mao Adnri,WIPO Case No. D2013-2143; Crédit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. Samir Andrea, 345645,WIPO Case No. D2017-0145; and Crédit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. Yu Ming,WIPO Case No. D2005-0458. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision For all 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 Lorelei Ritchie
Sole Panelist
Dated: August 25, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy