The Complainant is Crédit Industriel et Commercial S.A., France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.
The Respondent is 杨智超 (Zhichao Yang), China.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe Disputed Domain Name
The Complaint in English was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 29, 2021. On November 29, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On November 30, 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 Complainant on November 30, 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 in English on December 1, 2021.
On November 30, 2021, the Center sent an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding on December 1, 2021. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.
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 in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 6, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 26, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 28, 2021.
The Center appointed Kar Liang Soh as the sole panelist in this matter on January 4, 2022. 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 a long-established bank in France with its origins tracing back to 1859. It currently has more than 4.7 million clients with more than 2000 agencies in France and 38 abroad.
The Complainant operates under the trademark CIC (the “CIC Trademark”) and it owns numerous trademarks consisting or including the sign CIC around the world. These include:
Jurisdiction
Trademark number
Registration date
France
1358524
June 10, 1986
Europe
005891411
March 05, 2008
Europe
11355328
March 26, 2013
WIPO
585099
April 10, 1992
France
1691423
September 05, 1991
WIPO
585098
April 10, 1992
France
1682713
July 24, 1991
In addition, the Complainant holds various domain names incorporating the CIC Trademark such as
The Respondent is an individual with an address in China. Little is known about the Respondent beyond the contents of the Complaint and the Registrar verification.
The Disputed Domain Name
The Complainant contends that:
a) The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CIC Trademark. The use of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”)“.com” does not affect the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the CIC Trademark. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the CIC Trademark in its entirety. The mere addition of the descriptive wording “credit” does not serve as a distinguishing feature nor eliminate confusion. The letter “c” between “cic” and “credit” can be identified as typo squatting of the CIC Trademark;
b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated or licensed with the Complainant in any way. The Complainant has not given anyone else permission to use the Complainant’s Trademarks in any manner, including in domain names; and
c) The Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The Respondent could not have ignored the reputation of the Complainant’s Trademarks when registering the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name to divert Internet users to a website with three hyperlinks, each resolving further to a webpage containing third-party website links in the financial field. As a bank, the Complainant continually faces counterfeiting and phishing attempts. The Complainant has a burden to protect its clients from counterfeiting and fraud.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language of the ProceedingSince the language of the Registration Agreement of the Disputed Domain Name is Chinese, the default language of the proceeding is Chinese. However, taking into account the following circumstances, the Panel determines that English should be the language of the proceeding:
1) The Complaint was submitted in English and the Complainant requested English to be the language of the proceeding;
2) The website resolved from the Disputed Domain Name is entirely in English;
3) The Complainant has indicated that requiring the Complainant to proceed in Chinese would result in additional translation costs and would unduly delay the proceeding;
4) The Respondent has chosen not to participate in the proceedings and not to contest the language request of the Complainant; and
5) Forcing the Complainant to use Chinese would serve no discernible purpose.
The Complainant is required to establish all three limbs of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy to succeed in this proceeding. The Panel shall consider each of these limbs in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe registrations of the Complainant’s CIC Trademark are direct evidence of the Complainant’s rights in them. The Panel notes that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the CIC Trademark in its entirety. Aside from the Top-Level Domain which, by consensus of past panels, can be ignored for purposes of comparison between the Disputed Domain Name and the CIC Trademark, the only difference between them is the addition of a suffix comprising the letter “c” and the term “credit”. It is noted that the term “credit” is frequently used in financial services which are associated with the Complainant’s business and the services promoted on the website resolved from the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel is of the view that the CIC Trademark is recognizablelewithin the Disputed Domain Name; hence the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CIC Trademark. As such, the Panel holds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CIC Trademark and the first limb of paragraph 4(a) is clearly established.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThe Complainant has denied any relationship with the Respondent. The Complainant has also confirmed that it has not licensed the Respondent to use the Disputed Domain Name. The evidence before the Panel does not suggest that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or any claim that the Respondent may reasonably make to any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel concludes that the Complainant has shown a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Since no Response was filed, this prima facie case is not rebutted. The second limb of paragraph 4(a) is accordingly established on the facts.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithParagraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy outlines a common example of bad faith registration and use:
“by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”
The Panel accepts the common view of the past panels that the CIC Trademark is well-known. In the circumstances, the Respondent must have known of the CIC Trademark, and it is very unlikely to be a coincidence that financial services are promoted on the website resolved from the Disputed Domain Name and commercial gain must have been intended. Bearing these factors in mind, the Disputed Domain Name must have been registered and is being used for intentionally attempting to attract for commercial gain Internet users to the website resolved from the Disputed Domain Name by creating a likelihood of confusion with the CIC Trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website or the services promoted on the website. As such, the circumstances fall squarely within the bad faith registration and use outlined in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The Panel also takes cognizance of the fact that in the current global pandemic, customers of financial services are limited in their ability to engage in face-to-face transactions. These customers must turn to the unavoidable alternative of transacting matters online. The domain name system provides an agnostic backbone for enabling online resources, whether legitimate or otherwise. Unfortunately, domain names registered and used in bad faith offer ready instruments for phishing and cyber security scams. In this climate, the Policy plays an important role in safeguarding the public against such heightened risks.
Having considered all the circumstances, the Panel finds that the third limb of paragraph 4(a) is also established on the facts.
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,
Kar Liang Soh
Sole Panelist
Date: January 18, 2022