The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
The disputed domain name is, as the Complainant contends, inactive since its registration. At all times throughout these proceedings, the same has been observed.
The Panel must be satisfied that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant has submitted that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent it (the Complainant) from reflecting its trademark in a corresponding domain name. This is clearly a reference to paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the UDRP. However, there is no evidence that the Complainant would wish to register the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Complainant has omitted the text 'provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct', which also appears in paragraph 4(b)(ii). There is no evidence at all of such a pattern in this case, nor is such referred to by the Complainant. This submission is therefore not well founded.
On the other hand, the Complainant's citation of the 'Telstra' decision, and its emphasis upon the degree to which the trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE is well known, is a much surer basis for a finding of registration and use in bad faith. The Panel is able to find that this case is one of 'passive holding', where it is not possible to identify a situation where use would realistically be in good faith (see WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, para 3.2 including its summary of the 'Telstra' line of cases (WIPO AMC Case D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows). One of the factors in the Telstra test is that the Complainant's mark 'has a strong reputation and is widely known'. The Complainant has provided sufficient evidence, including reference to previous decisions under the UDRP at this Provider and at the WIPO AMC (e.g. CAC Case 100687 Credit Agricole S.A. v. Hildegard Gruener) and Google searches for the term. The Panel agrees that the mark is distinctive, and has been in use for many years; the Respondent has provided contact details in France, where the Complainant, which has a global reputation, has its longest-established operations. Moreover, the Respondent has, through its failure to participate in these proceedings, 'provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it' of the disputed domain name. The lack of an active website or any other relevant evidence means that the Panel cannot make any further assumptions about actual or contemplated good faith use. The Panel also notes the finding in WIPO Case D2008-1695 Humana Inc. v. HYRO FZ-LLC, cited above, that the use of WWW alongside a mark within a domain name indicates bad faith; the use of WW3 in this case does not detract from the applicability of this reasoning.
|