As per paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed concerning the disputed domain name the Complainant must prove the following:
(i) The disputed 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 disputed domain name; and
(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Concerning the initial aspect under the first element, and as per evidence on record, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has shown it owns rights in the ARKEA trademark.
Once having sorted out the initial aspect under the first element, and now turning to the second aspect under this element, namely, assessing the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name reproduces the trademark ARKEA letter-for-letter, with the addition of the following letters "MABANQUE", separated from the reproduction of the trademark by a hyphen. The additional words are likely meant to be the generic words “MA BANQUE”, which means “MY BANK” in French. French, being the official language of the country the Complainant is based in. Additionally, the generic words allude to the Complainant’s activities.
All in all, the additional elements of generic words do not dispel a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark. The generic words enhance the appearance of confusing similarity, since these additional words allude directly to the main business activity of the Complainant. Further analysis of the implications of this will be discussed below.
Based on the above, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. As a result, the Panel determines that the Complaint has satisfied the first element set under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Regarding the second element, and going through the analysis, it is first worth noting that the Respondent failed to produce allegations or evidence necessary to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Based on the evidence on record, the uncontested facts indicate that a) the Respondent is not commonly known as the disputed domain name; b) the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant; c) it is not authorized to carry out any activity for the Complainant; d) has no business dealings with the Complainant and e) the Respondent has no license or authorization to use the trademark.
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 (see 2.1 of WIPO 3.0 Overview).
The Respondent is failing to respond to the Complainant's contentions has not rebutted the prima facie case, as above-mentioned. Additionally, there is no other 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.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and therefore the Complainant has fulfilled the second requirement set under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds, as per the evidence on record, that the Respondent was likely aware of the Complainant and targeted the Complainant's trademark when registering the disputed domain name. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the Respondent seems to evoke a connection to the Complainant's trademark through the inclusion of the trademark in its entirety plus the addition of generic terms that directly allude to the main business activity of the Complainant. This fact in connection with the lack of response in these proceedings leaves the Panel no other option than to conclude that that the most likely intention of the Respondent about the disputed domain name was to intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website/Domain Name, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website and/or Domain Name (see 3.1 of WIPO 3.0 Overview).
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 preceding reasons and in conformity with the provisions contained under Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and Paragraph 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant.
|