In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the disputed domain name the Complainant must prove the following:
(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) The Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In light of the Respondent’s default, the Panel may treat as uncontested the Complainant’s factual assertions. The Panel will now review each of these elements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In relation to the trademark rights, the Complainant has established through the evidence on record its trademark “CREDIT AGRICOLE”, since at least early 2011. The Complainant has also provided evidence to show that its mark has achieved recognition through its use.
Regarding the confusingly similarity of the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the trademark, namely “CREDIT-AGRICOLE”, with the addition of a word and a string of characters preceding the trademark.
The Panel determines that the dominant element of the disputed domain name is the Complainant’s trademark. The addition of a word and characters does not detract from the confusing similarity between the trademark and the disputed domain name, as per section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO 3.0 Overview).
Accordingly, the Panel concludes the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant contents that it never licensed or permitted the Respondent to use its CREDIT AGRICOLE trademark and that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by it. The Complainant also asserts that, far from using the disputed domain name in respect of any bona fide offering of goods or services, the Respondent used for phishing activities. In the view of the Panel, these assertions are enough to establish a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
As per section 2.1 of WIPO 3.0 Overview, once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to provide relevant evidence to demonstrate the rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Should the respondent fail to produce such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.
Given that there is no available evidence on record that would otherwise allow the Panel to find any rights or legitimate interests for the Respondent in the disputed domain name and the fact that the Respondent failed to provide any evidence to refute the Complainant’s prima facie showing under the second element, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements set forth under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name incorporating the entirety of the trademark in it, with an indication of being used for phishing purposes, as per the evidence on record. This indicates that the Respondent was likely aware of the Complainant and had the Complainant’s marks in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Additionally, it seems likely that the Respondent aims to take advantage of the reputation of the Complainant and its trademarks, with the sole aim to create likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name.
Furthermore, and based on the evidence on record, the Panel concludes that the registration and use of the disputed domain name falls within the thrust of the conduct described under paragraph 4(b)(iv), which sets out one of the indicative list of circumstances considered evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith (see Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003).
The Panel thus finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements set forth under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
D. Decision
For the aforementioned reasons, in accordance with Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and Paragraph 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
|