This is a mandatory administrative proceeding pursuant to Paragraph 4 of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or "UDRP"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") and the CAC Supplemental Rules.
Paragraph 15 of the Rules provides that the Panel shall decide the 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 that it deems applicable.
According to Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or confusingly similar domain name
The Complainant demonstrated that it owns the asserted EU and international trademark registrations for "CREDIT AGRICOLE", which all significantly pre-date the disputed domain name. It is well established that a nationally or regionally registered trademark confers on its owner sufficient rights to satisfy the requirement of having trademark rights for the purposes of standing to file a UDRP case. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established such rights.
It is also well established that the generic top-level suffix may be disregarded when considering whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, as it is a necessary technical requirement of a domain name. This is true also for the so-called new generic top-level suffixes. Indeed, it has been repeatedly held in numerous UDRP cases that gTLDs such as ".online", ".site" and ".website" have no distinctive character (see for example CAC Cases No. 103323, 103114 and 102865) and would most likely be disregarded by web users. The same conclusion undoubtedly applies also to the ".one" gTLD.
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark "CREDIT AGRICOLE" in its entirety. The Panel, therefore, finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Lack of rights or legitimate interests
The Respondent has not filed a Response and has neither provided any other information that would oppose the Complainant's allegations. Therefore, the Panel holds that the Complainant successfully presented its prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
In particular, the Respondent is not in any way connected with the Complainant nor is it authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark for its commercial activities. In addition, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. Furthermore, it was demonstrated by evidence submitted by the Complainant that the disputed domain name has not been used for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use.
The Panel, therefore, finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
C. Registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith
With respect to the bad faith argument, the Complainant states, in summary, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known trademark, that the Respondent must have had actual knowledge of the Complainant's rights in the trademark, and that the disputed domain name is not used.
First of all, the Panel has already found that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar with the Complainant's trademark "CREDIT AGRICOLE". It is well established that mere registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark by an unaffiliated entity can lead to the presumption of bad faith. On top of that, this Panel concurs with the previous panel in the CAC Case No. 101964 in that the asserted trademarks are well-known, and consequently afford its owner stronger protection.
Secondly, the Complainant submitted evidence that the Panel believes sufficiently demonstrates the Respondent must have or at least should have been aware of the existence of the Complainant, its trademark, its domain names and, generally, the Complainant's online as well as offline business activities.
Lastly, the evidence submitted by the Complainant also shows that, at least upon filing the complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page and was inactive.
Typical circumstances demonstrating respondent's bad faith include a situation where the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the respondent's website or location (see Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).
Taking into account the above-described facts and evidence submitted by the Complainant, the Panel is satisfied that several signs of bad faith in registering and use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent are present in this case, in particular: (i) the degree of similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trademark that is indeed well-known in view of this Panel; (ii) absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no response from the Respondent to this Complaint; (iii) lack of use of the disputed domain name; and (iv) absence of any conceivable good faith use.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and has been used by the Respondent in bad faith.
In conclusion, the Panel finds that all three elements required by Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy were met and makes the following decision.
|