The disputed domain name includes the registered trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE of the Complainant, with the addition of “ww1” and hyphen between the words CREDIT and AGRICOLE. Thus on a very basic level the disputed Domain Name and the Complainant's trade mark could be said to be confusingly similar, especially given the fact that it is generally accepted that the test for confusing similarity is a very low, threshold test, designed simply to assess whether a complainant has standing to bring a complaint under the Policy. Therefore, the disputed domain name <ww1credit-agricole.net> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE based on a visual and aural comparison of the disputed domain name and the trademark.
The Complainant asserts that (i) the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way and that the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent; (ii) the website to which the disputed domain name resolves has been inactive since its registration; and (iii) this is clearly a typosquatting case, in that the disputed domain name takes advantage of a common typographical error by omitting the period between “www” and Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel finds that the Complainant's mark is distinctive and very well known. The Complainant’s assertions are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name on the part of the Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to the Respondent to show by concrete evidence that it does have rights or legitimate interests in that name. See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000-0624 and the cases there cited. The Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
A respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding under the Policy but if it fails to do so, asserted facts may be taken as true and reasonable inferences may be drawn from the information provided by the Complainant.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
In the absence of any innocent explanation on the part of the Respondent, the Panel accepts the Complainant's submission that, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark and thus engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003); Black & Decker Corp. v. Khan, FA 137223 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 3, 2003) (“finding the <wwwdewalt.com> domain name was registered to “ensnare those individuals who forget to type the period after the ‘www’ portion of [a] web-address,” which was evidence that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith”).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name <ww1credit-agricole.net> in bad faith.
|