The only difference between the Complainant’s trademark cited above and the disputed domain name are:
- the suffix “-banky”, which alludes to the descriptive term “bank”; and
- the suffix ".online", which is owed to the technical requirements of the domain name system and also descriptive.
This renders the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name confusingly similar.
The Panel further finds that the Complainant successfully submitted prima facie evidence that the Respondent has neither made any use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor is commonly known under the disputed domain name. This prima facie evidence was not challenged by the Respondent.
Given the false company name, address, and registration number that are presented on the Respondent’s French language website, which are designed to delude website users into believing that the website is operated by a legitimate French financial services company, the Panel also finds that the Complainant successfully submitted prima facie evidence that the Respondent was aware of Complainant's rights in the designation “Financo” when he registered the disputed domain name. Again, this prima facie evidence was not challenged by the Respondent, which supports the conclusion that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy). The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for a website offering loan and consumer credits, which falls squarely into the Complainant’s own business activities, demonstrates that the Respondent 'intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website', by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's web site (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).
|