{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103144", "time_of_filling": "2020-07-01 10:01:59", "domain_names": [ "certicode-activation.com", "certicodeplus-activation.com", "certicode-plus.com", "certicode-plus.info", "certicode-plus.net", "certicode.info" ], "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "LA BANQUE POSTALE" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)", "respondent": [ "Jason Bourne" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "As the Respondent did not file any response to the complaint, the Panel took into account the following facts asserted by the Complainant (and supported by the documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant) and unchallenged by the Respondent:\r\n\r\n(a) LA BANQUE POSTALE is a French bank and a subsidiary of LA POSTE, the national postal service. With 10.8 million active private customers and more than 400,000 customers businesses, professionals, social economy actors and local public sector bodies, LA BANQUE POSTALE is a unique and singular bank driven by the Post Office values of local presence and the highest level of service.\r\n\r\n(b) CERTICODE is a service offered by the Complainant to its customers to protect the online customer account. When the customer realizes some operations from its online bank account, a security code is sent by text message in order to confirm this operation. CERTICODE PLUS offers the same protection, through the mobile application.\r\n\r\n(c) The Complainant owns the Complainant's Trademark.\r\n\r\n(d) The disputed domain names were registered between April 2020 and June 2020. The domain names , and resolve to a website displaying the Complainant’s figurative trademark and a false customer access. The domain names and are inactive. The domain name resolves to a page with several links.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain names to the Complainant.", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that relate to the disputed domain name.", "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nTHE COMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nIn addition to the above factual assertions, the Complainant also contends the following:\r\n\r\n(i) Disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's Trademark. Disputed domain names , , , and are confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademark as the addition of the terms “ACTIVITATION” or “PLUS” and a hyphen is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademark.\r\n\r\n(ii) Respondent has no legitimate interest in disputed domain name. He has not been permitted or licensed to use Complainant’s Trademark. Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant nor authorized by it in any way to use its trademarks in a domain name or on a website. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.\r\n\r\n(iii) Disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s Trademark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain names, as the domain names , and resolve to a website displaying the Complainant’s logo and a false customer access. These disputed domain names are clearly used in a phishing scheme, which is also an evidence of bad faith. Furthermore, the addition of the term “PLUS” in disputed domain names and cannot be coincidental, as it directly refers to the security service offered by the Complainant. Finally, the Respondent registered six different domain names containing Complainant's Trademark. This pattern of registrations also clearly shows the Respondent’s bad faith.\r\n\r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not provide any response to the complaint.", "rights": "The Panel concluded that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (\"UDRP\" or \"Policy\").\r\n\r\nFor details, please see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".", "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 names within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.\r\n\r\nFor details, please see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".", "bad_faith": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.\r\n\r\nFor details, please see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".", "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": [ "Michal Matějka" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-08-16 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant owns the French trademark CERTICODE®, application number 3634004, registered since 4 March 2009 for goods and services in classes 36 and 38 (“Complainant’s Trademark”).\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names were registered between April 2020 and June 2020.", "decision_domains": { "CERTICODE-ACTIVATION.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "CERTICODEPLUS-ACTIVATION.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "CERTICODE-PLUS.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "CERTICODE-PLUS.INFO": "TRANSFERRED", "CERTICODE-PLUS.NET": "TRANSFERRED", "CERTICODE.INFO": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }