The Complainants are Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. and CME Group Inc. (indistinctively referred as the Complainant, or both together as the Complainants), United States of America (“United States” or “USA”), represented by Norvell IP llc, United States.
The Respondent is ? ?, Hong Kong, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 3, 2021. On May 4, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 5, 2021, 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 the Complainants on May 7, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainants to submit an amended Complaint. The Complainants filed an amended Complaint on May 18, 2021. 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 May 20, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 9, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 10, 2021. The Center appointed Anne-Virginie La Spada as the sole panelist in this matter on June 16, 2021. 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 first Complainant Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. is a company founded in 1898 in the USA. It is a leading financial institution with offices in various countries around the world. It belongs to the second Complainant CME Group Inc., one of the largest financial exchanges in the world. The name “cme” has been in use since 1919. The first Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations for CME in a large number of countries and in particular the following: - CME (word), United States registration No.1,085,681, registered on February 14, 1978, in classes 36 and 41; The Complainants also own numerous domain names for or incorporating “cme” and in particular the domain name The disputed domain name was registered on October 29, 2020. At the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to an active website reproducing the look and feel of the Complainants’ official website The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its CME trademarks. Indeed, the disputed domain name incorporates the trademark CME in its entirety, and the addition the term “clubs” does not obviate confusion. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and in the “CME” name, and that the Respondent is not authorized by the Complainant to use the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends finally that the Respondent was aware of the prior rights of the Complainant, given the well-known character of the CME trademark and the fact that the disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s trademark to redirect to an infringing website. Through registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. The Complainant therefore contends that the disputed domain name has been used and registered in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant must assert and prove each of the following: (i) the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and The Complainant owns rights for the trademark CME. The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety with no alteration, and combines this trademark with the term “clubs”. As a rule, previous UDPR panels consider that where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy (see section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)). In the present case, the trademark CME is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. The mere addition of the term “clubs” does not change the overall impression produced by the disputed domain name and does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark (see for example DPDgroup International Services GmbH & Co. KG v. Whois Privacy Protection Foundation / Aurelius Mark,WIPO Case No. D2019-3141). Previous UDRP panels also accept that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), such as “.com”, should be disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusing similar to a trademark (see section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). The Complainant has thus satisfied the condition set forth in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Based on the information submitted by the Complainant, the Respondent does not appear to have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, nor has the Complainant granted to the Respondent an authorization to use the disputed domain name. Moreover, there is no evidence indicating that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not appear to have operated any bona fide or legitimate business under the disputed domain name and is not making a noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Instead, the disputed domain name resolved to an active website similar to the Complainants' official website, which in the Panel’s view demonstrates an obvious attempt on the part of the Respondent to mislead Internet users seeking the Complainants’ services and website. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which has not been rebutted by the Respondent. Therefore, the Complainant has satisfied the condition set out in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove both registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. The trademark CME is distinctive. Considering furthermore that the disputed domain name resolved to a website imitating the Complainants’ official website and reproducing the Complainants’ trademark and logo, the Panel considers that the Respondent could not ignore the existence of the Complainant and of its CME trademark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. Consequently, the Panel finds it unlikely that the disputed domain name was registered without reference to the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel therefore accepts that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith. As mentioned, the disputed domain name used to redirect to a website reproducing the look and feel, and the trademark and logo of the Complainants, to promote financial trading services. This use was apt to lead Internet users into believing that it was the Complainants’ official website. In addition, this website offered inter alia for the Internet users the possibility to create an account. Under these circumstances, the Panel considers it likely that the Respondent intended to use the disputed domain name as a support for a potential fraudulent scheme, namely to impersonate the Complainant and extract personal or financial data from Internet users visiting its website. Previous UDRP panels have founds that such behavior amounts to use of a domain name in bad faith (see Marriott International, Inc., Marriott Worldwide Corporation and The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC v. Van C Bethancourt Jr., Andre Williams,WIPO Case No. D2018-2428 and Accor v. Sangho Heo, Contact Privacy Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2014-1471. The Panel considers therefore that the disputed domain name has been used in bad faith. Finally, the contact details that the Respondent provided for the registration of the disputed domain name, and which the Registrar disclosed to the Center upon filing of the Complaint, were incomplete, as they consisted solely of question marks with the indication Hong Kong, China. This behavior corroborates the Panel’s finding that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. For the reasons set out above, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, and that the Complainant has satisfied the condition set forth in 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 Anne-Virginie La Spada
- CME (word), United States registration No. 5,842,697 registered on August 27, 2019, in class 36;
- CME (word), Hong Kong, China, registration No. 300287839 registered on January 25, 2005, in classes 9, 36 and 42;
- CME (Word), Chinese registration No. 4162022 registered on December 7, 2007, in class 36.
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name registered by the respondent has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Sole Panelist
Date: July 2, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy