PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:
COMPLAINANT:
CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A. is the leader in retail banking in France and one of the largest banks in Europe. First financing the French economy and major European player, CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A. assists its clients' projects in France and around the world, in all areas of banking and trades associated with it: insurance management asset leasing and factoring, consumer credit, corporate and investment. The Complainant owns several trademarks including the distinctive wording “CREDIT AGRICOLE”, such as the followings registrations: International registration CA CREDIT AGRICOLE® no. 441714 registered since 1978-10-25 and International registration CREDIT AGRICOLE® no. 1064647 registered since 2011-01-04. CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A. is also the owner of domain names, including the same distinctive wording CREDIT AGRICOLE®, such as <creditagricole.com> registered since 2001-06-11. The disputed domain name <creditagricole.ooo> was registered on June 14th 2018. The domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links related to the Complainant.
The Legal Grounds are that the disputed domain name is identical and the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the domain name(s) and is domain parking.
According to the WIPO Case no. D2003-0455, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the UDRP.
The Respondent is not known as “CREDIT AGRICOLE”, but as “RATNAM SMART BUSINESS LLP”, and has not acquired trademarks mark rights on this term. Past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the WHOIS information was not similar to the disputed domain name. Please see for instance: FORUM Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston / Elite Media Group <bobsfromsketchers.com> (“Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Chad Moston / Elite Media Group.” The Panel therefore finds under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).” See also FORUM Case No. FA 699652, The Braun Corporation v. Wayne Loney.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A. in any way. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Neither licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademarks CREDIT AGRICOLE®, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.
Furthermore, the disputed domain name points to a parking page with commercial links (“PPC”) related to the Complainant. Past panels have found it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use. See FORUM case No. FA 970871, Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees). Therefore, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests on the disputed domain name.
The domain name(s) has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Registration of a well-known/famous trade mark attracting internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant. The Complainant’s trademarks CREDIT AGRICOLE® are widely known. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademarks CREDIT AGRICOLE®. See for instance, CAC Case No. 101964, CREDIT AGRICOLE SA v. alexadra jean paris (“The Complainant is a well-known bank with global presence which is also present in Mexico where the Respondent allegedly resides. The Panel has no doubt that Complainant's Trademarks are well known around the world”). Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks. Please see for instance WIPO - D2004-0673 - Ferrari S.p.A v. American Entertainment Group Inc. The term CREDIT AGRICOLE ® is worldwide known only in relation with the Complainant, in particular, in India, the Respondent’s country. A Google search on the expression CREDIT AGRICOLE® displays several results, all of them being related to the Complainant and its banking activity. Furthermore, past Panels stated that the Complainant's trademark “has a long history, a strong reputation, is highly distinctive, particularly in countries where the primary language is not French, and is widely known”. See CAC Case No. 101281 CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A. v. JOSEPH Kavanagh.
Furthermore, the disputed domain name <creditagricole.ooo> resolves to a parking page with commercial links (“PPC”) related to the Complainant. The Complainant contends the Respondent has attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own website thanks to the Complainant’s trademarks, which is an evidence of bad faith. Please see FORUM Case No. FA 1650460, Capital One Financial Corp. v. KIM MINSUNG (“The use of a domain name similar to a mark in which a complaining party has rights to host various commercial links related to the complainant’s business is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. […] The Panel finds that Respondent’s use does not fall within Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii).”) On these grounds, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Please see for instance WIPO Case No. D2017-1039, Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. dfdfddan wei, Mi Mi Xiao Wang (“It is the consensus practice of past UDRP panels that TLDs, in this case “.xyz”, should be disregarded when comparing domain names with trademarks.”) Finally, many UDRP decisions have confirmed the Complainant’s rights such as: WIPO Case No. D2015-1187, Credit Agricole S.A. v. Shao Hu <creditagricole.top> and WIPO Case No. D2012-0258, Credit Agricole S.A. v. Wang Rongxi <creditagricole.mobi>. Past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the WHOIS information was not similar to the disputed domain name. Please see for instance: FORUM Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston / Elite Media Group <bobsfromsketchers.com> (“Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Chad Moston / Elite Media Group.” The Panel therefore finds under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”) See also NAF Case No. FA 699652, The Braun Corporation v. Wayne Loney and see FORUM case No. FA 970871, Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees) and CAC Case No. 101964, CREDIT AGRICOLE SA v. alexadra jean paris (“The Complainant is a well-known bank with global presence which is also present in Mexico where the Respondent allegedly resides. The Panel has no doubt that Complainant's Trademarks are well known around the world”). Please see CAC Case No. 101281 CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A. v. JOSEPH Kavanagh (“the Complainant's trademark has a long history, a strong reputation, is highly distinctive (particularly in countries where the primary language is not French) and is widely known”). See FORUM Case No. FA 1650460, Capital One Financial Corp. v. KIM MINSUNG (“The use of a domain name similar to a mark in which a complaining party has rights to host various commercial links related to the complainant’s business is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. […] The Panel finds that Respondent’s use does not fall within Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii)”).
RESPONDENT:
NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.
|