In the opinion of the Panel the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks (Policy, Par. 4 (a)(i)). 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 or the principal part thereof in its entirety. The European Union trademark of the Complainant predates by many years the registration date of the disputed domain name. The top-level domain “com”, the addition “FR” (which stands for France) and the two hyphens in the disputed domain name may be disregarded.
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 Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademarks or to register the disputed domain name incorporating its marks. The Respondent is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademarks of the Complainant. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has it acquired trademark rights. The Complainant has no relationship with the Respondent.
The Respondent did not submit any response. Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (Policy, Par. 4 (a)(ii)).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (Policy, Par. 4(a)(iii)). The trademarks of the Complainant have been existing for a long time and are well-known. The Respondent knew or should have known that the disputed domain name included the Complainant’s trademarks especially in view of the fact that the Respondent has an address in France where the banks of the Complainant are located in almost every town. The Panel notes that the website at the disputed domain name is currently a page under construction (“sito in costruzione”). Passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent the Panel from finding registration and use in bad faith. The Panel further notes that the undeveloped use of the website at the disputed domain name which incorporates the Complainant’s trademarks in its entirety indicates that the Respondents possibly registered the disputed domain name with the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the trademarks of the Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a service on its website or location, as per paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
|