{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101927", "time_of_filling": "2018-03-23 09:20:00", "domain_names": [ "cla-aps-credit-agricole-paylib.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "CREDIT AGRICOLE SA" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora MILLOCHEAU)", "respondent": [ "SIMO TAHIR" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is one of the largest European banks and provides its services, both in France and in other countries, also in the field of insurance management, asset leasing and factoring, consumer credit, corporate and investment.\r\n\r\nIt operates its main website at the domain name , registered since December 31, 1999.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on March 9, 2018. \r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any of any legal proceedings which are pending or decided in relation to the disputed domain name.", "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\n\r\nTHE COMPLAINANT\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks and domain names, since the addition in the disputed domain name of the generic words “cla” aps paylib (which refers to “Crédit Agricole”), are not sufficient elements to avoid the risk of confusion between the disputed domain name and the above listed trademarks by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name since i) the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way, and the Complainant has not granted any license or authorization to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademarks, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name; and ii) the disputed domain name points to an inactive website.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also states that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith because i) given the massive recognition of the Complainant's trademarks, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks; ii) the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intention of taking advantage of the Complainant's trademarks; and iii) the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use. \r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.\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).\r\n\r\nNumerous UDRP decisions have also recognized that the addition of a generic term associated to a trademark does not create a new or different right to the mark or diminish confusing similarity. Please see for instance: \r\n\r\n- CAC Case n° 101402 CREDIT AGRICOLE SA v. William Philippe: finding that: “the addition of the term is only a minor variation and therefore not sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names and from the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE; the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE constitutes the dominant component of the disputed domain names.”\r\n\r\n", "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).\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the disputed domain name points to an inactive website since its registration. Therefore, the Complainant contends that Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name since its registration, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plans to use the disputed domain name. This is a blatant evidence of lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nPlease see for instance: \r\n\r\n- WIPO case No. D2000-1164, Boeing Co. v. Bressi: the Panel stated that the “Respondent has advanced no basis on which he could conclude that it has a right or legitimate interest in the domain names”\r\n", "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).\r\n\r\nAs prior WIPO UDRP panels have held, the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use. \r\n\r\nPlease see for instance:\r\n\r\n- WIPO - D2000-0003 - Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows\r\n- WIPO - D2000-0400 - CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen\r\n", "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": [ "Massimo Cimoli" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-04-30 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the leader of retail banking in France and is the owner, amongst others of the following:\r\n\r\nEuropean Union trademark registration No. 005505995 for CA CREDIT AGRICOLE, registered on December 12, 2007; and \r\n\r\nInternational trademark registrations No. 441714 for CA CREDIT AGRICOLE, registered on October 25, 1978, in classes 16, 35, 36 and 42 and No.1064647 for CREDIT AGRICOLE since December 20, 2007.\r\n", "decision_domains": { "CLA-APS-CREDIT-AGRICOLE-PAYLIB.COM": "" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }