RIGHTS
Since the domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks are not identical, the key element investigated and considered by the Panel is whether the disputed domain name consisting of a term “CREDIT-AGRICOLE” accompanied by a prefix “SUR” is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
The threshold test for confusing similarity under the UDRP involves a comparison between the trademark and the domain name itself to determine likelihood of Internet user confusion. In order to satisfy this test, the relevant trademark would generally need to be recognizable as such within the domain name. An addition of common, dictionary, descriptive, or other descriptive terms is typically insufficient to prevent threshold Internet user confusion. Confusing similarity test under the UDRP typically involves a straightforward visual and aural comparison of the trademark with the domain name.
Applying the principles described above, the Panel contends that incorporation of the dominant “CREDIT-AGRICOLE” element of Complainant’s trademarks (which standalone enjoys high level of distinctiveness) into the disputed domain name constitute confusing similarity between Complainant’s trademarks and such domain name.
Addition of non-distinctive element - prefix “SUR” - to the “CFREDIT-AGRICOLE” denomination cannot prevent the association in the eyes of internet consumers between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks and thus the likelihood of confusion still exists.
For sake of completeness, the Panel asserts that the top-level suffix in the domain name (i.e. the ".com") must be disregarded under the confusing similarity test as it is a necessary technical requirement of registration.
Therefore, the Panel has decided that there is confusing similarity in this case, it also concludes that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP.
NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS
Based on general Internet search, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Given the fact, that (i) the Respondent's not actively using the disputed domain name and (ii) in the absence of the Respondent's response, the Panel concludes that there is no indication that the domain name was intended to be used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as required by the Policy.
Consequently, the evidentiary burden shifts to the Respondent to show by concrete evidence that it does have rights or legitimate interests in that name. However, the Respondent failed to provide any information and evidence that it has relevant rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy).
BAD FAITH
The Panel finds it grounded that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, namely, by blocking the domain name for itself and not using it for any legitimate purpose.
No active use of the domain name indicates that the Respondent has likely registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant. With comparative reference to the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy deemed to establish bad faith registration and use, panel has found that the apparent lack of so-called active use of the disputed domain name without any active attempt to sell or to contact the trademark holder (passive holding), does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith.
For the reasons described above and since the Respondent failed to provide any explanation in this regard, the Panel contends, on the balance of probabilities, that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
|