ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Caisse Des Depots et Consignations v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Name Redacted Case No. D2022-2888 1. The Parties The Complainant is Caisse Des Depots et Consignations, France, represented by Nameshield, France. The Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States of America / Name Redacted. 1 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on August 5, 2022. On August 5, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 6, 2022, 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 9, 2022, 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 9, 2022. 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"). 1 The Respondent appears to have used the names and/or contact details of third parties when registering the disputed domain name. In light of the potential identity theft, the Panel has redacted the Respondent's name from this decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this Decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain name, which includes the name of the Respondent. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding, and has indicated Annex 1 to this Decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST 12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788. page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 15, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 4, 2022. Communications from the disclosed registrant were received by the Center on August 9, 16, and 23, 2022, informing the Center that it has received the Written Notice but the registration of the disputed domain name has been made, without his knowledge or authorization, by a third party using his identity. The Center appointed Marilena Comanescu 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 part of a French group, founded in 1816, which represents a major public financial institution dedicated primarily to develop France. The Complainant owns trademark registrations for CAISSE DES DEPOTS in several countries, such as the following: - the International Trademark Registration No. 873590 for the words with device CAISSE DES DEPOTS, registered on June 29, 2005, for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42; and - the European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 05138615 for the words CAISSE DES DEPOTS, filed on May 29, 2006, and registered on November 22, 2007, for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42 and 43. The Complainant promotes its services on various websites, the main one being . The disputed domain name was registered on July 7, 2022, and, at the time of filing the Complaint, it resolves to an inactive website. The Respondent is an entity whose identity was initially protected by a privacy shield. An individual with an identical name as the underlying registrant, after the reception of the Written Notice, and the Complaint, sent a timely email communication to the Center claiming identity theft. Furthermore according to Annex 7 to Complaint, the disputed domain name was used in connection with a "phishing scheme" namely for sending emails, impersonating an employee of the Complainant, in order to try to conduct a customer of the Complainant to pay a purportedly outstanding invoice. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name incorporates and is confusingly similar to the trademark CAISSE DES DEPOTS, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith knowing the Complainant's trademark and business. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name to it. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant can only succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy if the following circumstances are met: (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 the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel will further analyze the potential concurrence of the above circumstances. A. Preliminary Procedural Issue. Respondent and Redaction of Respondent's Identity As noted above, the Name Redacted has been confirmed by the Registrar as the listed registrant of record for the disputed domain name. Name Redacted claims in its email communications of August 9, 16, and 23, 2022, that it is a victim of identity theft, as detailed in section 3 above. The Panel will refer to the disputed domain name registrant's name as Name Redacted, and to the individual or entity which registered (and used) the disputed domain name as the Respondent. The Panel is satisfied that the Center, by sending communications to the registrant revealed by the Registrar to its listed WhoIs postal address, email addresses, has exercised extreme care and discharged its responsibility under paragraph 2 of the Rules to employ all reasonably available means to serve actual notice of the Complaint upon the Respondent. Further, under paragraph 4(j) of the Policy the Panel has the power to determine to redact portions of its decision in exceptional circumstances. The practical result of the exercise of this power is that the provider, in this case the Center, will not publish on the Internet the full decision, but will redact the portion determined by the Panel to be redacted. The evidence has made it clear in the opinion of this Panel that a fraud was perpetrated, and that Name Redacted is one of the victims of identity theft. Thus, although the disputed domain name holder is the proper Respondent in this proceeding, the real name and contact details of the person who wrongly effected the registration of the disputed domain name is unknown. This Panel has formed the view that it may be unfair to Name Redacted to continue to have its name associated with the proceeding, especially where the impression may be given to Internet users that Name Redacted has some responsibility for some of the events, whereas in fact Name Redacted does not. The Panel has therefore decided that in all the circumstances this is an exceptional case and that it is appropriate to redact the registrant's name and information from the Panel's decision. See also Lutosa v. Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2021-0809; Accenture Global Services Limited v. Domains by Proxy, LLC / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2013-2099; Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST-12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788; and Siemens AG, Siemens Trademark GmbH & Co. KG v. NAME REDACTED, WIPO Case No. D2022-1632. page 4 B. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant holds rights in the trademark CAISSE DES DEPOTS. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark with an additional term "fr". However, such addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity as the Complainant's trademark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. Numerous UDRP panels have considered that the addition of other terms (whether geographical wording, descriptive, pejorative, meaningless or otherwise) to trademarks in a 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 ("WIPO Overview 3.0"). Further, it is well established in decisions under the UDRP that the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") (e.g., ".com", ".info", ".one") may typically be disregarded for the purposes of consideration of confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name. See section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Given the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark CAISSE DES DEPOTS, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). C. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant asserts that the Respondent does not hold any trademark rights, license, or authorization whatsoever to use the mark CAISSE DES DEPOTS, that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use or a bona fide offering of goods or services. Under the Policy, "where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element". See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. As provided in the Annex 7 to Complaint, the disputed domain name has been used to fraudulently impersonate the Complainant in order to try to unduly obtain a wire transfer from one of its customers. In this regard, panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (such as swindle, fraud, identity theft, phishing and impersonation) can never confer rights or legitimate interests in a respondent. See section 2.13 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii). D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant holds trademark rights in CAISSE DES DEPOTS since at least 2005, respectively in the domain name since 1996. The disputed domain name was registered on July 7, 2022, and incorporates the Complainant's distinctive mark with an additional term, "fr", which is a geographical designation for France, Complainant's country of origin. For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, with knowledge of the Complainant, its business and particularly targeting the Complainant's trademark. As noted above, the disputed domain name was used in connection with a "phishing scheme" namely for page 5 sending emails, impersonating an employee of the Complainant, in order to try to conduct a customer of the Complainant to pay a purportedly outstanding invoice. Panels have held that such use of a domain name for purposes other than to host a website may constitute bad faith. The findings that the Respondent targeted and impersonated the Complainant compel the Panel to conclude that the Respondent used the disputed domain name in bad faith to impersonate the Complainant, and take unfair advantage of the Complainant's trademark, attempting to mislead a third party. See also section 3.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Furthermore, at the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name was directed to an error page. Such use can be considered a passive holding. From the inception of the UDRP, panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or "coming soon" or other similar inactive page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. The Panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the Respondent is acting in bad faith. Examples of what may be relevant circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith include the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant's mark and the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use. See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Panels additionally view the provision of false contact information (or an additional privacy or proxy service) underlying a privacy or proxy service as an indication of bad faith. See section 3.6 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Previous UDRP panels have found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a third party's well-known trademark can, by itself, constitute a presumption of bad faith for the purpose of Policy. See section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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 be transferred to the Complainant. /Marilena Comanescu/ Marilena Comanescu Sole Panelist Date: September 23, 2022
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy