According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy the Complainant must prove for the requested transfer of the disputed domain names <cic-bank> and <banque-cic> under the top-level domain (dot)net that
(i) the domain names are 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 with respect to the domain names; and
(iii) the domain names has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Without a doubt the Complain complies with all these requirements:
The Domain names are at least confusingly similar to a trademark of the Complainant
The top-level domain “(dot)net” has to be disregarded when comparing trademarks and domain names, due to its importance, acknowledged by the market, as an essential component of domain names.
The Complainant is the proprietor of trademark rights in respect of the acronym <CIC>. Apart from the descriptive terms „bank“ and „banque“ the disputed domain names are identical with the trademark rights while it is a worldwide standard that the mere addition of descriptive terms does not eliminates confusing similarity that is otherwise present.
For these reasons the domain names <cic-bank> and <banque-cic> and the trademark <CIC> are at least confusingly similar and the Panel considers that the condition set out by paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.
2.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out examples of what a respondent may demonstrate to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in respect of a domain name:
Any of the following circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(iI) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The Panel cannot reasonably conclude that the Respondent is commonly known by the domain names because there are no functioning websites available from the disputed domain names and there is no evidence that there ever were functioning websites before the Complaint being filed. As a general point a Respondent who does not respond to a complaint is unlike to prepare oneself for a bona fide offering of goods or services under the domain names or to prepare a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademarks at issue.
Accordingly, on the evidence available to it, the Panel considers that the condition set out by paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy have been met by the Complainant.
3.
The Respondent has registered and used the domain names in bad faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy enumerates four circumstances that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of domain names in bad faith. These circumstances are non-inclusive, why several other indicators can establish bad faith as the Respondent had never used the domain names and provided no evidence that he intends to use the domain names; and it is not possible to conceive the Respondent could use the domain names in any legitimate way; and the Respondent concealed his identity and did not provide a response to the complaint.
In this case it is obvious to the Panel that the Respondent has never used the domain names nor intended to use the domain names in a legitimate way. The Panel also cannot imagine how the Respondent could use the domain names with the descriptive terms „bank“ and „banque“ and the expression <CIC> in a legitimate way. That there is no legitimate way to use the domain names was also obvious to the Respondent for which reason he concealed his identity at the time of the registration of the domain names. While the Respondent concealed its identity, the Respondent was unable to be contacted for delivery of the Complaint and has failed to respond to the Complaint; and to offer any bona fide explanation for having obtained and passively retained the disputed domain names.
Considering all circumstances the Panel finds that the condition set out by paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy have been met by the Complainant. |