ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Crédit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. Darin Cene Case No. D2023-4300 1. The Parties The Complainant is Crédit Industriel et Commercial S.A., France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France. The Respondent is Darin Cene, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on October 17, 2023. On October 17, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 17, 2023, 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 (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 18, 2023, 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 amendment to the Complaint on October 18, 2023. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 October 30, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 19, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on November 20, 2023. The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on November 24, 2023. 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a bank, established in 1859, with its head office in Paris, France. The Complainant has over 5 million customers and operates more than 1,800 agencies in France and 37 agencies in other countries. The Complainant is widely known by its acronym "CIC", which is registered as a trademark in various jurisdictions. Among others, the Complainant is the owner of the European Union Trademark No. 05891411, registered on March 5, 2008, for CIC, covering protection for various goods and financial services as protected by classes 9, 16, 35, and 36 (Annex D2 to the Complaint). The Complainant also owns and operates its main website at "www.cic.fr" (Annexes C1 to C3 to the Complaint). The Respondent is reportedly located in the United Kingdom. The disputed domain name was registered on August 18, 2023. According to the documents provided by the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolved to a website in English language that prominently used the CIC trademark without providing for a visible disclaimer describing the (lack of) relationship between the Parties. At that website, various financial services were purportedly offered to Internet users, including an alleged login page for customers (Annexes F1 and F5 to the Complaint). Furthermore, the Respondent has activated and configured mail exchange ("MX") records for the disputed domain name, which enables the Respondent to send and receive emails using the disputed domain name (Annex K to the Complaint). At the time of the decision, the disputed domain name no longer resolves to an active website. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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. page 3 Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled, even if the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant's contentions. Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2007-1228. However, concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel might, where relevant, accept the provided reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint as true. See section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"). It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the consensus views stated therein. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of the CIC mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CIC mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, here the term "trust", may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of "proving a negative", requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, 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 (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant's prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. On the contrary and bearing in mind that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to attract customers of the Complainant, the Panel cannot exclude that the disputed domain name is used or will be used in connection with possibly fraudulent or illegitimate activities by the Respondent. Noting that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's CIC trademark, which carries a risk of page 4 implied affiliation, the Panel has no doubt that the Respondent's intent is to impersonate the Complainant. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (here impersonation and related types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent's registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent must have had the Complainant and its CIC trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name. It is obvious to the Panel, that the Respondent has deliberately chosen the disputed domain name to target and mislead third parties. Consequently, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. With respect to the use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally registered the disputed domain name in order to generate traffic to its own website by misleading third parties in a false belief that the associated website is operated or at least authorized by the Complainant, apparently for the purpose of phishing or other fraudulent activities. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for such illegal activity (e.g., impersonation or other types of fraud) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Furthermore, the Panel accepts the failure of the Respondent to submit a response to the Complainant's contentions as an additional indication for bad faith. Also, the Panel believes that the activated MX email server for the disputed domain name creates a real or implied ongoing threat to the Complainant and supports the Panel's finding on bad faith. The fact that the disputed domain name currently does no longer resolve to an active website does not prevent a finding of bad faith. All in all, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 be transferred to the Complainant. /Kaya Köklü/ Kaya Köklü Sole Panelist Date: December 8, 2023
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy