{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101701",
    "time_of_filling": "2017-10-04 11:30:06",
    "domain_names": [
        "credit-ogricole.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "CREDIT AGRICOLE SA"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Maxime Benoist)",
    "respondent": [
        "iFinex Inc"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nCREDIT AGRICOLE S.A. (the Complainant) is one of the largest banks in Europe. CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A. assists its clients' projects in France and around the world in all areas of banking and trades associated with it. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns several trademarks registered worldwide and consisting of or including the wording CREDIT AGRICOLE. CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A. also owns several domain names including the distinctive wording CREDIT AGRICOLE. The disputed domain name <credit-ogricole.com> has been registered on September 20, 2017 and it is totally inactive since its registration. In the Complainant's view the replacement of the letter \"A\" by the letter \"O\" in the word AGRICOLE is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to the trademark \"CREDIT AGRICOLE\". The Complainant contends that this is a clear case of typosquatting i.e. the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant's trademark: CREDIT-OGRICOLE instead of CREDIT-AGRICOLE. \r\n\r\nIn addition, according with the Complainant's statements the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Furthermore the Complainant argues that the trademark \"CREDIT AGRICOLE\" is a widely known trademark; actually, previous panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark \"CREDIT AGRICOLE\" (WIPO Case no. D2010-1683 Crédit Agricole S.A. v. Dick Weisz; WIPO Case no. D2012-0258 Credit Agricole S.A. v. Wang Rongxi; CAC Case no. 100688 Credit Agricole S.A. v. EMPARK; CAC Case no. 100687 Credit Agricole S.A. v. Hildegard Gruener; CAC Case no. 100633 Credit Agricole S.A. v. Credit Agricole Assurance). In the Complainant's view, given the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant's trademark it is reasonable that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's marks and with the intention of taking advantage of Complainant's trademark. The Complainant notes that, as confirmed 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. In consideration of the above mentioned circumstances the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings.",
    "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": [
        "Avv. Guido Maffei"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-11-02 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has demonstrated to be the owner of numerous trademark registrations protected worldwide, consisting of or including the wording CREDIT AGRICOLE and, in particular:\r\n\r\n- International trademark \"CA CREDIT AGRICOLE\" (fig.), no. 441714, registered on 25 October 1978 in classes 16, 35, 36, 42.\r\n\r\n- International trademark \"CA CREDIT AGRICOLE\" (fig.) no. 525634, registered on 13 July 1988 in classes 16, 35, 36\r\n\r\n- EUTM \"CA CREDIT AGRICOLE\" (fig.) no. 005505995, filed on 20 November 2006 and registered on 20 December 2007 in classes 9, 36, 38\r\n\r\n- EUTM \"CREDIT AGRICOLE\" no. 006456974, filed on 13 November 2007 and registered on 23 October 2008 in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38 \r\n\r\n- International trademark \"CREDIT AGRICOLE\" no. 1064647, registered on 4 January 2011 in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38 ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "CREDIT-OGRICOLE.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}