ADR.eu

Language
  • About us
    • Who we are
    • Other domain disputes
    • Contact us
    • News
  • My disputes
    • Login
    • Register new user
  • Help
    • For Complainants
    • For Respondents
    • For Panelists
  • Resources
    • What is UDRP
    • Rules
    • Fees
    • Decisions
    • Panellists
    • Disputed Domain Names
  • Home

This site serves for these domain disputes:

generic Top Level Domains and .co.nl, .co.no and .sx domains

Back to entry page - choose type of domain name dispute

Search

Dispute 100687

  •  
    Complaint
    •  
      Complaint Suspended
    •  
      Dispute Terminated
  •  
    Decision
    •  
      Complaint Accepted
    •  
      Partially Accepted / Rejected
    •  
      Settlement
    •  
      Complaint Rejected
  •  
    Settlement
    •  
      Dispute Terminated

On-line ADR Center of the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC)

Panel Decision

§ 15 of the UDRP Rules (Rules), § 9 of the CAC’s Supplemental Rules (Supplemental Rules)

Case No. 100687
Time of Filing 2013-10-17 10:27:00
Disputed domain name CREDIT-AGRICOLE-COM.COM
Case Administrator
Name Lada Válková
Complainant
Organization CREDIT AGRICOLE SA
Authorized Representative
Organization Nameshield (Laurent Becker)
Respondent
Name Hildegard Gruener
Other Legal Proceedings
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings.
Identification of rights
Complainant owns several trademarks for CREDIT AGRICOLE, including the international registration under the Madrid System nr. 441714, dated 25.10.1978. The trademark registrations predate the creation date of the disputed domain name (January 13, 2013).
Factual Background
The disputed domain name contains Complainant's trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE in full. Therefore, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's famous trademark (Policy, Par. 4 (a)(1)).

The Respondent has no rights in the trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE. The Complainant has no relationship with the Respondent. Accordingly, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (Policy, Par. 4 (a)(11)).

The trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE constitutes the dominant element of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a website with links to competitors of the Complainant. The Complainant finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (Policy, Par. 4(a)(iii)).
 
NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.
Rights
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i)of the Policy).
No rights or legitimate interests
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy).
Bad faith
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii)of the Policy).
Procedural Factors
The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.
Principal Reasons for the Decision
The Complainant has established that it is the owner of several trademark registrations for CREDIT AGRICOLE. The Panel notes that the Complainant’s registrations predate the creation date of the Domain Name. The Domain Name <credit-agricole-com.com> incorporates the entirety of the CREDIT AGRICOLE trademark as its distinctive element. Many UDRP decisions have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the disputed domain name incorporates the complainant’s trademark in its entirety. The addition of the common, descriptive and non-distinctive element “-com.com” is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity. The Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

In the opinion of the Panel the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent. This is particularly true as the Respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the trademark of the Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of a product on its website or location. In addition, the Respondent has not responded to the allegation of the Complainant that the website of the Respondent resolves to pay-per-click site promoting products and services of competitors of the Complainant.
Decision
For all the following reasons, the Complaint is Accepted
and the disputed domain name(s) are to be
CREDIT-AGRICOLE-COM.COM Transferred to Complainant
Panellists
Name Dinant T.L. Oosterbaan
Date of Panel Decision 2013-11-18
Publication of the Decision
Publish the Decision
Print this form

Copyright © 2008 Czech Arbitration Court | Online Platform: Copyright © 2008 Expert4me a.s. | Contact webmaster | Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy | Contacts