I/ The Panel, which finds that the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's CA CREDIT AGRICOLE trademark in its entirety, concurs with the opinion of prior UDRP panels which have held that the fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy (See e.g. Oki Data Americas Inc. v. ASD Inc., WIPO Case D2001-0903). Besides, the mere addition of descriptive or non-distinctive elements to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity. In the present case, the Complainant's trademark is associated with the generic and/or non-distinctive terms "centre", "mise à jour", "G3" and "en ligne" which do not prevent any likelihood of confusion. Finally, the Panel agrees with the well-established view under the UDRP that generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD") extensions may typically be considered irrelevant in assessing confusing similarity between a trademark and a disputed domain name (See e.g. Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH v. Ralf Zinc, WIPO Case No. D2016-1236) and considers the gTLD extension “.net” to be irrelevant in the present case.
II/ Given the absence of reply to the Complaint, and based on the evidence submitted in the case file, for example, that the Complainant had previously registered CA CREDIT AGRICOLE trademarks, the Panel deems that the Complainant has proved their earlier and lawful rights in the CA CREDIT AGRICOLE sign and accepts the Complainant's claim that the Respondent was never granted any right to use the CA CREDIT AGRICOLE trademark in relation to the disputed domain. The Panel consequently deems that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights in the disputed domain name. Besides, the Panel infers from the inactivity of the disputed domain name that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name with a bona fide offering of goods and services.
III/ Firstly, as the Complainant’s CA CREDIT AGRICOLE trademark is well-known and largely used in France and around the world, the Panel finds very unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. As a result, the Panel finds that the Respondent could not have unintentionally incorporated the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name and therefore, has registered the domain name in bad faith in order to capitalize on the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark (See e.g. Crédit Agricole SA v. EMPARK, CAC case No. 100688). Finally, as the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark and has not been used in connection with an active website, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has been passively holding the disputed domain name and, therefore, has been using it in bad faith (See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D-2000-0003).
|