ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Credit Industriel et Commercial v. Romain Citron Case No. D2024-4496 1. The Parties The Complainant is Credit Industriel et Commercial, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France. The Respondent is Romain Citron, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 31, 2024. On November 1, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 4, 2024, 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 (Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org)) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 4, 2024, 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 November 8, 2024. 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 November 12, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 2, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 3, 2024.
page 2 The Center appointed William Lobelson as the sole panelist in this matter on December 6, 2024. 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 Crédit Industriel et Commercial, trading as “CIC”, a France-based banking group, that owns various trademark registrations for CIC, such as French Registration No. 1358524 (for C.I.C., registered on November 21, 1986), European Union Trade Mark No. 005 891 411 (for CIC, registered on March 5, 2008), and European Union Trade Mark No. 11355328 (for CIC, registered on March 26, 2013). The disputed domain name is , registered on October 12, 2024. The Complainant has substantiated that the disputed domain name was resolving to a web page that imitate the Complainant’s genuine web site and reproduce the Complainant’s mark and logo, where Internet users were invited to enter their personal data. The Complainant obtained the deactivation of the said web page, dedicated to phishing purposes, and the disputed domain name now resolves to an error page. The Complainant has also shown that mail exchange (“MX”) servers had been set up in relation with the disputed domain name. 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. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its earlier trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. In particular, the Complainant has substantiated that the disputed domain name was used for phishing purposes, as it resolved to a web site that imitates the Complainant’s, and that MX servers has been set up by the Respondent. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions 6. Discussion and Findings Notwithstanding the default of the Respondent, it remains incumbent on the Complainant to make out its case in all respects under the Rules set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. Namely, the Complainant must prove that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i));
page 3 (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (paragraph 4(a)(ii)); and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii)). 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 of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms (here “group” and “inter”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms do 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 particularly by asserting that the Respondent is not affiliated with it in any way and that it never authorized the Respondent to use its trademark as part of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent does not make any bona fide or legitimate noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain name. In addition, the disputed domain name was used in connection with a fraudulent web site that impersonates the Complainant. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here impersonation/passing off, likely for phishing purposes, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.
page 4 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. 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (such as phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant, which is a clear indication that the Respondent knew about the Complainant and had his trademark in mind when it registered the disputed domain name. The fact that the disputed domain name was used for to impersonate the Complainant, most likely for phishing purposes, as it resolved to a web site that imitated the Complainant’s and provided opportunities for unsuspecting Internet users to contact the Respondent regarding sensitive banking matters, demonstrates a use in bad faith of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name currently resolving to an inactive page does not alter the finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. Further, the Complainant has filed evidence showing that the Respondent had set up MX servers in relation with the disputed domain name, thus revealing a possible intention to use the same as an email address. 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. /William Lobelson/ William Lobelson Sole Panelist Date: December 16, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy