The Complainant is Crédit Agricole S.A. of Montrouge Cedex, France, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is Jhon Smith of the Russian Federation. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on May 10, 2016. On May 10, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 11, 2016, 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 proceeding commenced on May 13, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 2, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on June 3, 2016.
The Center appointed Beatrice Onica Jarka as the sole panelist in this matter on June 8, 2016. 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 the leader in retail banking in France and one of the largest banks in Europe. The Complainant assists its clients' projects in France and around the world, in all areas of banking and trades associated with it: insurance management asset leasing and factoring, consumer credit, corporate and investment.
The Complainant owns several trademark registrations comprising CREDIT AGRICOLE which date back to 1978. The Complainant is also the owner of numerous domain names, including "credit agricole": registered on December 31, 1999, registered on July 7, 1995, registered on January 27, 2005, registered on November 4, 2008, registered on April 16, 2006, registered on November 21, 2008, registered on February 2, 2005, registered on March 18, 1999, registered on November 7, 2001, registered on February 28, 2008.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on April 8, 2016. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
By its complaint, the Complainant states that:
- the disputed domain name is identical to its trademarks CREDIT AGRICOLE and its domain names associated as the addition of the country code Top-Level Domain ("ccTLD") ".pw", is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's trademarks and does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE. Further, the extension is the country code for Paulau, and is especially marketed as the "professional web" extension. It also increases the confusion with the Complainant's trademarks, which offer its services to professionals.
- Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name as the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant's trademarks CREDIT AGRICOLE, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant and, in addition, the disputed domain name points to an inactive website since its registration.
- the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith as it has not been used since its registration. By registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent has maintained the disputed domain name in order to prevent the Complainant to register its trademark as a domain name in this extension. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns various registered trademarks CREDIT AGRICOLE protected throughout the world. The trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE is also reflected through the registration and use of domain names by the Complainant, such as .
In this case, the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant's trademark in its entirety, which was found to be widely known by prior UDRP panels (see, e.g., Credit Agricole S.A. v. Dick Weisz,WIPO Case No. D2010-1683; Credit Agricole S.A. v. Brand Austin / Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0142661580 / Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0142661581,WIPO Case No. D2016-0676. The disputed domain name merely adds a hypern, and otherwise is identical to the Complainant's mark.
Further, this Panel agrees with the Complainant assertions that the extension used for the disputed domain name is the ccTLD for Paulau, and is especially marketed as the "professional web" extension which may increase the confusion with the Complainant's trademarks, which is associated with its services to professionals, among others.
For all the reasons above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark and that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under this element of the Policy, the Complainant has to make at least a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to rebut the same, as indicated in the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0"), paragraph 2.1.
This Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
This Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant has shown that the Respondent does not benefit from a license or authorization, granted by the Complainant, to use the trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE and that the Complainant and the Respondent have no business relationship together. Besides, the Respondent is not commonly known under the name "Credit Agricole". Neither has the latter made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in relation with a bona fide offer of goods and services, since the disputed domain name is inactive.
Moreover, the Panel notes that the Respondent has not filed any response to the Complainant's contentions to try to establish that it has a possible right or legitimate interest in respect to the disputed domain name. The Respondent has thus not provided any evidence of the circumstances set in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise.
Consequently, the Panel considers that the Complainant has demonstrated that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and therefore, the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant asserts several circumstances which, in the opinion of the Panel, evidence the bad faith of the Respondent in registering and using the disputed domain name.
The Respondent has registered a domain name nearly identical to the Complainant's widely-known mark several decades after the Complainant's registration of its mark. While the disputed domain name does not resolve to any working page, it has been long established that the passive holding does not prevent a bad faith finding. The Panel cannot conceive of any use of the domain name nearly identical to the trademark of one of the largest banks in Europe that would be legitimate in the circumstances.
In addition, the Panel notes that contact details of the Respondent indicating an incomplete address, is further indication of the bad faith of the Respondent in registering and using the disputed domain name.
In the light of the findings above, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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.
Beatrice Onica Jarka
Sole Panelist
Date: June 22, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy