***IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR - paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy***
The disputed Domain Name consists of the Complainant's CREDIT AGRICOLE mark combined with the letters 'ASPI', and with the words in the Domain Name being separated by hyphens. The Domain Name also contacts the '.com' suffix.
The Panel finds the Complainant's mark to be the most dominant and distinctive aspect of the Domain Name, not least as it is at the beginning of the Domain Name and that it is a distinctive and well known mark. The panel does not regard the addition of the hyphens between the words, together with the letters 'ASPI' (which appear at the end of the Domain Name) to sufficiently alter the nature of the Domain Name such that it might avoid a finding of the Domain Name being confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark.
The '.com' suffix may be disregarded when it comes to considering whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.
As a result, the Panel concludes that the disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
***RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS - paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy***
The Respondent failed to file an administratively compliant (or any) response. In the circumstances the Panel finds from the facts put forward that:
- The Respondent does not appear to have any trade marks associated with the CREDIT AGRICOLE mark.
- There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the CREDIT AGRICOLE mark, and the Respondent does not have authorisation from the Complainant to use the CREDIT AGRICOLE mark.
- There is no evidence to show the Respondent has used the disputed Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services of its own. The Domain Name does not point to an active website, but merely a holding page stating 'Sito web in manutenzione'.
On the balance of probabilities, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary (or any administratively compliant response at all) being put forward by the Respondent, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy.
***REGISTERED AND USED IN BAD FAITH - paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy***
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out non-exclusive criteria which shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith including that the Respondent acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant, the trade mark owner for valuable consideration. The panel believes it likely that this was one of the reasons behind the Respondent's registers toon and use of the Domain Name.
On the balance of probabilities, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary (or any administratively compliant response at all) being put forward by the Respondent, the Panel believes from the facts in this case that the Respondent had the Complainant's CREDIT AGRICOLE mark in mind when registering and using the Domain Name. This is all the more likely as following the filing of its Complaint the proxy shield was lifted on the WHOIS, and it transpired that the Respondent is an individual who is based in France. The Panel believes therefore it is very likely that the Respondent would have known of the Complainant's well known CREDIT AGROCOLE trade mark.
As such, the Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
|