The Complainant is Credit Agricole SA, France, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is Metodi Darzev, Tool Domains Ltd, Bulgaria, self-represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 23, 2019. On October 23, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 24, 2019, 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 October 28, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 17, 2019. The Response was filed with the Center on November 1, 2019. The Center appointed Andrew F. Christie as the sole panelist in this matter on November 5, 2019. 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 leader in retail banking in France, and one of the largest banks in Europe. It assists clients in France and around the world in all areas of banking and associated services, including insurance, asset leasing, factoring, consumer credit, and corporate and investment activities. The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations for the word trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE, including European Union Trade Mark registration number 006456974 (registered October 23, 2008), and International trademark registration number 1064647 (registered on January 4, 2011). The Complainant is the owner of several domain names incorporating the trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE, including The disputed domain name was registered on October 16, 2019. The Complainant has provided a screenshot dated October 23, 2019, showing that the disputed domain name then resolved to a website containing a parking page with links related to the Complainant and its activities. At the top of the page are the words “Acheter ce domaine” which means in English “Buy this domain”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to its trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE, and that the applicable Top-Level Domain identifier may be disregarded when comparing a disputed domain name with a trademark. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name because: (i) the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name, but instead is known as Tools Domains Ltd; (ii) the Respondent is not known to, affiliated with, or authorized by, the Complainant in any way; (iii) the Complainant neither carries out any activity for, nor has any business with, the Respondent; (iv) the Respondent has not been granted any license or authorization to make use of the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE, or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name; (v) the disputed domain name redirects to a parking page with commercial links related to the Complainant and its activities which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; and (vi) the disputed domain name is being offered for sale. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because: (i) given the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE, it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without actual knowledge of the Complainant’s rights in that trademark; (ii) as the disputed domain name redirects to a parking page with commercial links related to the Complainant and its activities, the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to a website through use of the Complainant’s trademark; (iii) the website resolving from the disputed domain name displays the message “Acheter ce domain” which means in English “Buy this domain”; and (iv) the Respondent has demonstrated a pattern of bad faith registrations as it has registered other domain names containing third-party trademarks, such as In relation to whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, and to whether the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Respondent simply states that it “objects the arguments made by the Complainant”. No argument or reasons for these objections was provided. In relation to whether the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith, the Respondent states that it “objects the arguments made by the Complainant” and asserts that: (i) the disputed domain name was not registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring it to the Complainant, or a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs; (ii) the disputed domain name was not registered in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, and the Respondent has not engaged in a pattern of such conduct; (iii) the Complainant and the Respondent are not competitors, and the disputed domain name was not registered by the Respondent primarily to disrupt the Complainant’s business; and (iv) the disputed domain name was not registered by the Respondent in an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. The Respondent did not provide any explanation as to why it didregister the disputed domain name. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Once the country-code Top-Level Domain “.nu” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), the disputed domain name consists of the whole of the Complainant’s registered word trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE, with a hyphen substituting for the space between the two words. The substitution of the hyphen for the space does not avoid the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent is not a licensee of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Complainant, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its registered trademark. The Respondent has not provided any evidence that it has been commonly known by, or has made a bona fide use of, the disputed domain name, or that it has, for any other reason, rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The evidence provided by the Complainant shows that the disputed domain name was used to resolve to a website containing a number of links, which appear to be links both to the Complainant’s businesses and to other businesses in the same or related fields. The website also states that the disputed domain name is for sale. According to the present record, therefore, the disputed domain name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The disputed domain name was registered many years after the Complainant first registered its CREDIT AGRICOLE trademark. The evidence on the record provided by the Complainant with respect to the use of its CREDIT AGRICOLE trademark, combined with the absence of any evidence provided by the Respondent to the contrary, is sufficient to satisfy the Panel that, at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademark and knew that it had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the evidence on the record provided by the Complainant with respect to the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name indicates that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website by creating confusion in the minds of the public as to an association between the website and the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 Andrew F. Christie
Sole Panelist
Date: November 19, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy