{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101473",
    "time_of_filling": "2017-03-21 09:14:08",
    "domain_names": [
        "DIRECT-CREDIT-AGRICOLE.COM"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Aneta Jelenová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "PROXY PROTECTION LLC"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks and its domain names associated, since the disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s registered and widely known trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE in its entirety. The Complainant also argues, that Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the Complainant´s Trademarks, which it proves by citing number of WIPO and CAC past disputed. The Complainant contends that the addition at the beginning of the disputed domain name of the generic word “DIRECT”, separated from the trademark by a hyphen, with the use of the gTLD “.com”, are not sufficient elements to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. The complainant further states that the Claimant has never licenced nor authorized the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant adds that the disputed domain name points to an inactive website, since its registration.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and its reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intention of taking advantage of Complainant's trademarks. Ultimately, the Complainant states that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its trademark in a corresponding domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that (i) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant´s trademarks, (ii)the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant therefore seeks a transfer of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The panel is not aware of any other proceedings related to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\n",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).",
    "bad_faith": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).",
    "procedural_factors": "The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Mr. E.J.V.T. van den Broek"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-06-20 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Apart from the business name Crédit Agricole, being the company name of the Complainant, that company is also the proprietor of numerous CRÉDIT AGRICOLE trademarks worldwide, such as EUTM (wordmark 006456974) registered since October 23, 2008 and EUTM figurative mark CA CRÉDIT AGRICOLE (005505995) registered since December 20, 2007, International Registration (figurative) CA CRÉDIT AGRICOLE No. 441714 registered since October 25, 1978, International Registration (figurative) CA CRÉDIT AGRICOLE No. 525634 registered since July 31, 1978 and International Registration No. 1064647 (wordmark) CREDIT AGRICOLE registered since January 4, 2011.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "DIRECT-CREDIT-AGRICOLE.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    }
}