{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103109",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-06-12 09:10:00",
    "domain_names": [
        "mabanque-arkea.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "CREDIT MUTUEL ARKEA"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "Secure"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the cooperative and mutual bank insurance group in France.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant was created originally in 1911 in Brittany (France), the Central Office succeeded in federating all the mutualist, cooperative and social works of the department before meeting the multiple needs of farmers in the fields of credit, insurance, and vocational training. In 2002, the federations of Crédit Mutuel de Bretagne (CMB) and Crédit Mutuel du Sud-Ouest (CMSO) and the twenty or so specialized subsidiaries formed a group that took the name CREDIT MUTUEL ARKEA. As a manufacturer and distributor, the Complainant covers all areas of banking, insurance, and finance.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also used for its official website the domain name <arkea.com>, registered since July 26, 2002.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on May 28, 2020, and points to a page without any substantial content.  ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not cognizant of any other pending or decided legal proceedings relating to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "COMPLAINANT\r\n\r\nA. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its previous trademark registration on the term “ARKEA” and its domain names associated.\r\n\r\nIndeed, the disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s registered trademark ARKEA in its entirety.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name only differs from the trademark ARKEA by the addition of the generic words \"MA BANQUE\" (which means \"MY BANK\" in French, about the Complainant's activities) and the addition of a hyphen.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD “.COM\" does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark ARKEA. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant, its trademark, and its domain names associated.\r\n\r\nSo the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark ARKEA.\r\n\r\n\r\nB. RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. 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 asserts that the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. Past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the Whois information was not similar to the disputed domain name. Thus, the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and he is not related in any way with the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.\r\n\r\nNeither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark ARKEA, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name redirects to a parked page without any substantial content. 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 plan to use the disputed domain name. It demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThus, per the foregoing, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n\r\nC. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark ARKEA.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has registered the disputed domain name several years after the registration of the trademark ARKEA by the Complainant, which has established a strong reputation while using this trademark. Besides, the Complainant contends that the term \"ARKEA\" does not have any signification, except concerning the Complainant. The addition of the terms \"MABANQUE\" to the Complainant's trademark ARKEA cannot be coincidental, as it directly refers to the Complainant activities.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the Respondent knew or should have known about the Complainant's rights, which evidences bad faith.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the disputed domain name resolves to a parked page without any substantial content. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and that failure to make active use of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith. Consequently, the Complainant contends that the Respondent attempts to attract internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark for its commercial gain. Past panels have held that this is evidence of bad faith registration and use. \r\n\r\nThus, Complainant contends that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name and is using it in bad faith.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT\r\n\r\nNo administratively compliant Response has been filed.",
    "rights": "To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).\r\n",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has 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": "To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has 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": [
        "Rodolfo Carlos Rivas Rea"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-07-08 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant owns the word mark “ARKEA”, under trademark number n° 96636222 registered in France since July 26, 1996, and the French trademark “CREDIT MUTUEL ARKEA”, registered since May 11, 2012 under n° 3888981.  ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "MABANQUE-ARKEA.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}