The Complainant is Banque Palatine, France, represented by DBK - Société d’avocats, France.
The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / linos diaz, linosd8, France.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 12, 2021. On August 12, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same day, 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 Complainant on August 19, 2021 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 August 19, 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 August 24, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 13, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 21, 2021.
The Center appointed Christophe Caron as the sole panelist in this matter on September 29, 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 BackgroundThe Complainant is Banque Palatine, a French bank specialized in small and medium-sized companies and in asset management.
The Complainant owns numerous trademarks, such as:
- The International semi-figurative trademark BANQUE PALATINE L’ART D’ETRE BANQUIER (logo) registered under number 1066933 on January 12, 2011, for services in class 35 and 36;
- The French trademark BANQUE PALATINE registered under number 3644179 on April 15, 2009, for services in class 35, 36, and 38;
- The European Union trademark PALATINE registered under number 004353223 on July 31, 2006, for goods and services in class 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42;
- the French trademark PALATINE registered under number 3338990 on February 2, 2005, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 38, 41, 42, and 45;
- the French trademark PALATINE registered under number 3314051 on September 22, 2004, for services in classes 35 and 36.
The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name
The disputed domain name
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant first argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its prior trademarks and domain name. According to the Complainant, the use of the descriptive misspelled word “Banq” in the disputed domain name does not avoid the likelihood of confusion with its trademarks. On the contrary, the use of the misspelled word “Banq” directly refers to the Complainant’s Banking activities and thus contributes to emphasize the likelihood of confusion. Thus, the Complainant considers that this use of its trademarks in the disputed domain name leads the public to believe that the litigious domain names belongs to the Complainant and is an expansion of its services.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
According to the Complainant, it has never authorized the Respondent to register and/or use any domain name incorporating its trademarks. The Complainant has not granted any license, nor any authorization to use the trademarks, included as a domain name. Thus, the Respondent has no right to use the disputed domain name. Moreover, according to the Complainant, the Respondent is anonymous, and the trademarks are well-known in France and through the world, therefore the disputed domain name is obviously calculated to confuse or deceive, as it falsely suggests that any services provided thereunder are linked to the Complainant. In addition, the Complainant considers the Respondent has not made a legitimate noncommercial or a fair use of the disputed domain name that leads to an inactive website. Under these circumstances, the Complainant considers the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to use the disputed domain name.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Complainant considers Banque Palatine and its parent company BPCE Group are well-known in France and through the world, notably by the financial and banking market consumers. The Complainant states that the Center has already recognized the reputation of Banque Palatine and BPCE Group in previous UDRP decisions. Consequently, according to the Complainant, the choice of the disputed domain name does not seem to be a mere coincidence, but on the contrary seems to have been done on purpose to generate a likelihood of confusion with the trademarks of the Complainant.
Moreover, regarding the use in bad faith, the Complainant reminds that previous UDRP decisions already stated that passive use of a domain name can constitute abusive use. The Complainant adds that in the field of banking services, consumer protection and security services are a key issue given the sensitive nature of the data processed.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsTo succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied, namely:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarParagraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to trademarks registered by the Complainant.
The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks BANQUE PALATINE and PALATINE.
The trademarks PALATINE are entirely reproduced in the disputed domain name
The addition of the TLD “.com” and the term “banq” (which is a part of the word “bank” in French – “banque”) in the disputed domain name 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)
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. Thus, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsParagraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
This Panel is satisfied that the Respondent does not appear to have been commonly known by the disputed domain name, he is not a licensee or an agent of the Complainant, nor in any way is authorized to use the Complainants’ trademarks.
Furthermore, the Respondent cannot claim to have been using the terms “palatine-banq” without being aware of the Complainant’s rights.
Moreover, it appears that the disputed domain name leads to a website displaying links pointing to a page displaying an error message. It proves that the Respondent has no legitimate activity under the disputed domain name.
Hence, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is also satisfied.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithParagraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
It appears that “palatine-banq” refers to the Complainant and has no other signification. The Respondent could not have ignored the existence of the Complainant at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. In Panel’s opinion, the addition of the term “banq”, which is a term referring to the Complainant’s banking activities, to the trademark PALATINE increases the likelihood of confusion.
The Panel therefore considers that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith.
The Panel notes that the disputed domain name leads to a website displaying links pointing to a page displaying an error message. Moreover, there is no evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent attempts to conceal his identity. For these reasons, the passive use of the disputed domain name can constitute abusive use.
For all these reasons, it appears to this Panel that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is made out.
7. DecisionFor 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
Christophe Caron
Sole Panelist
Date: October 8, 2021