ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD Case No. D2022-2656 1. The Parties The Complainant is Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A., France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France. The Respondent is Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, Panama. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name (the "Domain Name"') is registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on July 20, 2022. On July 20, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On July 22, 2022, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 9, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 29, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on September 1, 2022. page 2 The Center appointed Gregor Vos as the sole panelist in this matter on September 12, 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 Background The Complainant is a French deposit bank that was founded in 1859. The Complainant has currently more than 5.3 million clients, more than 1.800 agencies in France and 37 in the rest of the world. The Complainant is the owner of inter alia the following French and European Union ("EU") trademark registrations (hereinafter jointly referred to as: the "Trademarks"): - French Trademark registration No. 1358524 for CIC registered on June 10, 1986; - EU Trade mark Registration No. 005891411 for CIC registered on March 5, 2008; and - EU Trade mark Registration No. 11355328 for registered on March 26, 2013. Further, it is undisputed that the Complainant is the holder of inter alia the following domain names: - , registered on May 27, 1999; - , registered on March 6, 2006; The Domain Name was registered on February 1, 2021 and currently resolves to a website displaying random pay-per-click ("PPC") pages with third party trademarks, such as inter alia pages related to the Complainant's services and links to adult websites. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant With the Complaint, the Complainant seeks that the Domain Name is transferred to the Complainant. The Complaint is based on the following factual and legal grounds: the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trademarks of the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Firstly, according to the Complainant, the Domain Name is highly similar to its well-known Trademarks. The Trademarks are identically reproduced in the Domain Name. The addition of the term "help" and the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com" does not eliminate confusion with the Trademarks. Secondly, according to the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complainant has not sponsored, affiliated or licensed the Respondent's use of the Trademarks, including in the Domain Name. Also, the Domain Name resolves to a website on which PPC links are displayed and the Respondent has thus not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. Finally, according to the Complainant, the Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. The Respondent had knowledge of the reputation of the Trademarks when registering the Domain Name. According to the Complainant, the Domain Name is used to display randomized PPC links. Therefore, the Respondent uses the Domain Name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website by creating likelihood of confusion on the Complainants Trademarks. The Complainant page 3 finally claims that the Respondent is undoubtedly not making any good faith use of the Domain Name and that there is a strong suspicion of the Respondent using or intending to use the Domain Name in a phishing scam. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In view of the lack of a response filed by the Respondent as required under paragraph 5 of the Rules, this proceeding has proceeded by way of default. Hence, under paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel is directed to decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's undisputed factual presentations. For the Complainant to succeed, it must prove, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and on the balance of probabilities that: i. the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which the Complainant has rights; ii. the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and iii. the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Only if all three elements have been fulfilled, the Panel is able to grant the remedies requested by the Complainant. The Panel will deal with each of the requirements in turn. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the Domain Name is (i) identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, (ii) in which the Complainant has rights. With respect to having rights pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is noted that the Complainant is registered as the owner of the Trademarks. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that it has rights in the Trademarks. With regard to the assessment of identity or confusing similarity of the Domain Name with the Trademarks, it is generally accepted that this test involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant's Trademarks and the Domain Name (see section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0")). In cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark (see section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). In the present case, the Trademarks are incorporated in their entirety in the Domain Name. The addition of the gTLD ".com" and the term "help" does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the Trademarks (see sections 1.8 and 1.11 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). Consequently, the Panel finds that the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The second requirement the Complainant must prove is that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The onus of proving this requirement, like each element, falls on the Complainant. Given the difficulty in proving a negative, however, it is usually sufficient for a complainant to page 4 make out a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. If a complainant does establish a prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to the respondent (see, e.g. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1; Sanofi v. Cimpress Schweiz GmbH, WIPO Case No. D2017-0522). Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists three nonlimitative examples of instances in which a respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has substantiated that none of these circumstances apply in this case. By defaulting, the Respondent has failed to rebut the prima facie case established by the Complainant. Furthermore, based on the record before it, the Panel does not see an indication that any of the circumstances of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy is present. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Paragraph 4(a)(ii) is thereby fulfilled. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, a complainant must show that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists four nonlimitative circumstances which may be considered as evidence of registration and use in bad faith of a domain name. In the present case, the Trademarks are registered by the Complainant and have been used for many years. The Complainant's rights to the Trademarks predate the registration date of the Domain Name. In light of the well-known character of the Trademarks in the field of banking and financial services, the Panel agrees with the Complainant that it is not conceivable that the Respondent chose the Domain Name without knowledge of the Complainant's activities and its Trademarks under which the Complainant is doing business. The well-known character of the Trademarks of the Complainant has been confirmed by earlier UDRP panels (see e.g. Crédit Industriel Et Commercial S.A. v. Latifa Yatim, WIPO Case No. D2019-0474; Credit Industriel et Commercial v. Mao Adnri, WIPO Case No. D2013-2143). Further, in light of the lack of any rights to or legitimate interest in the Domain Name by the Respondent and in the absence of any conceivable good faith use of the Domain Name, the Panel finds from the present circumstances that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's well-known Trademarks. This is reinforced by the fact that the Domain Name resolves to a website on which PPC links are shown that are related to the Complaint's services and activities. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith and that the third element of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is fulfilled. 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. /Gregor Vos/ Gregor Vos Sole Panelist Date: September 26, 2022
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy