A) Confusing similarity
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s registered trademarks COFINOGA, but for the generic TLD .info.
Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the COFINOGA trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
B) Lack of legitimate rights or interests
The disputed domain name is a distinctive, non-descriptive name. It is unlikely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without having the Complainant firmly in mind. The Complainant’s assertions that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant are sufficient to constitute a prima facie demonstration of the absence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the part of the Respondent. The burden of evidence therefore shifts to the Respondent to show, using tangible evidence, that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
C) Registered or Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant gives sound bases for its contention that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith.
Firstly, owing to the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, especially in France, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent, who is from France, registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.
Indeed, from the Respondent’s email address, “ contact.vitalfinance.patrimoine@............... “, It can be assumed that the Respondent is operating in the same field of the complainant, i.e. finance. Therefore the Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name.
Secondly, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s unchallenged assertion that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the aim of creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.
Thirdly, it appears that the disputed domain name redirects to a “forbidden access” page, and, as affirmed by previous panels, the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use.
The Panel thus believe that by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, presumably for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its web site (par. 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).
|