1. Paragraph 15 of the Rules states that the Panel shall decide a Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law deemed applicable.
In the case of default by a Party, Rule 14 states that if a Party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with a provision of, or requirement under the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as appropriate.
In the present case, the Respondent has not submitted any Response and consequently has not contested any of the contentions made by the Complainant.
The Panel proceeds therefore to decide only on the basis of the Complainant’s factual statements and the documentary evidences provided in support of them.
The Complainant is owner of multiples trademarks whose common distinctive element is a particle “CA”, which does not have any known meaning and rather refer to the Complainant acronym. Besides the EU protection, the trademarks “CA” have been registered by the Complainant in France and several non-EU countries.
Since the Complainant’s trademark “CA” is fully comprised within the Domain Name the trademarks and the Domain Name are similar to the extent that the most distinctive elements of the prior trademarks are reproduced.
The Panel accordingly concludes that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
2. The Respondent is not in any way related to the Complainant's business, and is not the agents of the Complainant. The Respondent is not currently known and have never been known as “CA”, or any combination of this trademark.
Finally the website at the Domain Name is currently inactive and there is no evidence of it having ever been associated with any goods or services.
Therefore, and in the absence of a Response, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name.
3. As to the bad faith, the Complainant argues that Respondent registered the Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s trademarks. Actual knowledge of a Complainant’s rights in a trademark may be proven through a totality of circumstances surrounding the registration of the Domain Name.
Secondly, the Complainant point out that Respondent uses the Domain Name for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks, and domain name used as an official e-mail addresses “@ca-lf.com” of the Complainant's subsidiary Credit Agricole Leasing et Factoring.
Given the widespread presence of the Complainant’s trademarks and the way how the Respondent is using the Domain Name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and registered domain name of its subsidiary, the Panel finds that intended to free ride on the goodwill of Complainant’s trademark in an attempt to exploit, for commercial gain, Internet users destined for Complainant.
In other words, in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary and rebuttal from Respondent, the Panelist infer that the Respondent’s activity is indicative of registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith.
Consequently the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
|