{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102357",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-02-15 09:32:47",
    "domain_names": [
        "financo-invest.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "FINANCO "
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "interfinancemennt"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it was founded in 1986 and that it is a financial company specializing in consumer credit. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that it has 400 employees and that it is a subsidiary of a larger company group, namely Crédit Mutuel Arkéa.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that it is the owner of several French trademarks containing the word “FINANCO”. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that it is also the owner of various domain names that contain the distinctive word “FINANCO”, including the domain name <financo.fr>, registered on March 18, 1998, and the domain name <financo.eu>, registered on March 20, 2006.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant observes that the disputed domain name was registered on January 31, 2019, and redirects to a website in French which offers loans and consumer credits.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark “FINANCO” because it includes the Complainant's trademark in its entirety and the addition of the generic term is not sufficient to avoid confusing similarity.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the addition of the term “INVEST”, which relates to the same kind of activity carried out by the Complainant, increases the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that the addition of the top-level domain suffix “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected with the trademark “FINANCO”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant observes that it is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest and, once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant adds that if the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent is not known as “FINANCO-INVEST”, but has a different name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by it in any way. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant underlines that neither licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademarks.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that it has never authorised the Respondent to apply for registration of the disputed domain name on behalf of the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the word “FINANCO” does not correspond to any word in the dictionary.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant observes that the website related to the disputed domain name is used for offering financial services which compete with the services provided by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant notes that the company appearing in the legal notice of the website related to the disputed domain name has the address in France, however it does not correspond to any company registered with the French official Company Register.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant underlines that the disputed domain name has been registered many years after the registration of the Complainant's trademark “FINANCO”. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant stressed that the word “FINANCO”  has no meaning in any language and that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name for promoting financial services which compete with the services offered by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the use of a domain name for offering competing services is often considered as evidence of bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark, the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to the Respondent's website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such website. The Complainant observes that these activities amount to bad faith use of the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. \r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "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": [
        "Michele Antonini"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-03-25 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner, among others, of the French trademark registration No. 3747380 for “FINANCO” (word and device), filed on June 18, 2010, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38 and 42.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on January 31, 2019. ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "FINANCO-INVEST.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}