1. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark FINANCO, as it includes the core of the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, with the mere addition of the term “groupo” (clearly referring to the meaning of the English word “group”) and the Top-Level domain “.com” which, as stated in a number of prior decisions rendered under the UDRP, are not sufficient to exclude confusing similarity.
2. The Complainant stated that the Respondent is not affiliated with or authorized by the Complainant in any way. There is no evidence of the fact that the Respondent might have been commonly known by the disputed domain name or by a name corresponding to the disputed domain name. According to the evidence on records, the Respondent has pointed the disputed domain name to an external web page providing website creation services under the sign “SimpleSite”. Therefore, the Panel finds that there is no evidence showing that the Respondent made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or that it has made a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and that, by not submitting a Response, the Respondent has failed to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case.
3. As to the bad faith at the time of the registration, the Panel finds that, in light of the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark, with which the disputed domain name is confusingly similar, and of the prior registration and use of the trademark FINANCO by the Complainant, the Respondent was more likely than not aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name.
By pointing the disputed domain name to a landing page of a provider offering website creation services under its own trademark, the Respondent has in fact not used the disputed domain name in connection with an active web site. As established in a number of prior cases, the concept of “bad faith use” in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy includes not only positive action but also passive holding, especially in cases of domain name registrations corresponding to distinctive and/or well-known trademarks; see i.a. the landmark case Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.
|