{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101938", "time_of_filling": "2018-03-23 09:15:25", "domain_names": [ "serv3-creditagricole-paylib.info" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "CREDIT AGRICOLE SA" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)", "respondent": [ "Samir Chabbar" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant is a French bank whose market presence is expanding internationally. It is the leader in retail banking in France and one of the largest banks in Europe. Its portfolio of financial services includes insurance, asset leasing and factoring, consumer credit, and corporate and investment banking.\r\n\r\nBased on details provided to the Case Administrator by the registrar of the disputed domain name, the Respondent is a resident in Pontcharra, France.", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings pending or decided related to the disputed domain name.", "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nNumerous UDRP decisions have recognized that the addition of a generic term to a trademark does not create a new or different right to the mark or diminish confusing similarity with the mark, notably CAC Case No. 101402 CREDIT AGRICOLE SA v. William Philippe. It was found in that case 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\nThe Respondent is not known as “CREDIT AGRICOLE”, but as “SAMIR CHABBAR”, and has not acquired trademarks or mark rights to use this name. The Complainant refers to the decisions of past panels which have concluded that a Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the WHOIS information was not similar to the disputed domain name, for instance NAF Case No. FA 96356 - Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp.: Panel stated that the Respondent has “no rights or legitimate interests because the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use”.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant adduces evidence that the disputed domain name has since registration pointed to an inactive website, permitting the inference that the Respondent's inactivity shows that he has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name and thus lacks a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Complainant supports this reasoning by reference to WIPO case No. D2000-1164, Boeing Co. v. Bressi, in which the Panel stated that the “Respondent has advanced no basis [to] conclude that it has a right or legitimate interest in the domain names”;\r\n\r\nGiven the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, the Complainant argues that it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks. It cites for this proposition WIPO - D2004-0673 - Ferrari S.p.A v. American Entertainment Group Inc. and the decisions of prior WIPO UDRP panels as regards the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, such as the decision in WIPO - D2000-0003 - Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT: NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.", "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": [ "Kevin J. Madders" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-05-09 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant adduced evidence of its following trademarks:\r\n\r\n- International registration CREDIT AGRICOLE No. 1064647, registered since 4 January 2011 under Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38 and 42 in the Nice Classification System\r\n- International registration CA CREDIT AGRICOLE No. 441714, registered since 25 October 1978\r\n- European registration CA CREDIT AGRICOLE No. 005505995, registered since 20 December 2007.\r\n\r\nThere are further registrations to these, in particular underlying EU trademarks. Some marks are figurative. The case file discloses that recognition of protection has been withheld with respect to some of the classes claimed, but this is the exception. Even then, the coverage claimed was accepted for insurance, financial and monetary affairs and real estate matters (class 36), which are the core business areas of the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also adduced proof of its extensive registration of domain names incorporating the CREDIT AGRICOLE trademark, with and without a hyphen. Its domain name registrations include .com, .net and .fr TLD names.", "decision_domains": { "SERV3-CREDITAGRICOLE-PAYLIB.INFO": "" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }