PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Domain Name is identical or 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).
A) Complainant
CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A. is the leader in retail banking in France and one of the largest banks in Europe.
First financing the French economy and major European player, CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A. 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 trademarks including the distinctive wording CREDIT AGRICOLE® (either consisting only of the wording CREDIT AGRICOLE® or in addition to a device).
CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A. is also the owner of domain names, including the distinctive wording CREDIT AGRICOLE®.
The disputed domain name <credite-agricole.com> has been registered on December 08, 2013. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name <credite-agricole.com> is confusingly similar to its trademarks and branded goods CREDIT AGRICOLE®.
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name <credite-agricole.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE®.
The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s registered and widely known trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE® in its entirety.
The Complainant contends the addition of the letter “E”, a dash and the GTLD “.COM” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain is confusingly similar to the trademarks and does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to a trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE®.
It does not avoid the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name <credite-agricole.com> and the Complainant, its trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE® and its domain names associated.
So the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
Once such prima facie case is made, Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the UDRP.
The Complainant’s trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE® is a widely known trademark. Panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE®.
See:
WIPO case no. D2010-1683 Credit Agricole S.A. v. Dick Weisz
WIPO case no. D2012-0258 Credit Agricole S.A. v. Wang Rongxi
Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's marks and uses it for the purpose of disturbing the Complaint’s business.
See Ferrari S.p.A v. American Entertainment Group. Inc, WIPO Case no. D2004-0673.
Furthermore, the domain name displays no information (“Inactive page”).
Prior Panels have held the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use.
See:
WIPO - D2000-0003 - Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows
WIPO - D2000-0400 - CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen
On these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
B) Respondent
The Respondent did not respond to the Complainant at all even though he is obliged to do so.
|