{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103700", "time_of_filling": "2021-03-31 00:00:00", "domain_names": [ "iccvvbo.org" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "CHAMBRE DE COMMERCE INTERNATIONALE" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)", "respondent": [ "Greg William" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nLa Chambre de Commerce Internationale (“ICC”, or “International Chamber of Commerce”) is the institutional representative of more than 45 million companies in over 100 countries with a mission to make business work for everyone, every day, everywhere. Particularly, ICC represents business interests at the highest levels of intergovernmental decision-making, whether at the World Trade Organization, the United Nations or the G20.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns numerous trademarks ICC®, such as:\r\n- the international trademark ICC® n° 1235263 registered since 2014-07-29;\r\n- the European trademark ICC® n° 012556701 registered since 2014-06-25.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is also the owner of a large portfolio of domain names “ICC”, such as , registered since 1996-08-30:\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 2021-03-16 and resolves to an inactive page. Besides, the domain name has been used in a phishing scheme.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks ICC®.\r\n\r\nThe addition of the letters “VVBO” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademarks. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademarks and domain names associated.\r\n\r\nIt is well-established that “a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP” (WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin).\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant asserts that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain suffix “.ORG” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark ICC®. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademarks and its domain names associated.\r\n\r\nOn the contrary, these additions worsen the likelihood of confusion, as it directly refers to the Complainant’s official domain name , used for its official website and email addresses.\r\n\r\nWIPO Case No. D2006-0451, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A. (“It is also well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org” or “.net” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.”).\r\n\r\nConsequently, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.\r\n\r\nAccording to the WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., a 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, 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 UDRP.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database 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\nFor instance Forum Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group (“Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group.” The Panel therefore finds under Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii).”).\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is not known by the Complainant. The Complainant contends that Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. 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 ICC®, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant asserts that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass itself off as one of the Complainant’s employees, in order to receive undue payment. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy paragraph 4 (c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(c)(iii).\r\n\r\nForum Case No. 1775963, United Rentals, Inc. v. saskia gaaede \/ Mr (“Complainant submits that Respondent is intending to impersonate Complainant to contact customers of Complainant, posing as a credit supervisor of Complainant, directing customers to transmit payments to a bank account not controlled by Complainant. See Compl. Append. M. Therefore, the Panel agrees with Complainant and finds that Respondent has does not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name per Policy paragraph 4(c)(i) or (iii)”).\r\n\r\nThus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name .\r\n\r\nLa Chambre de Commerce Internationale (“ICC”, or “International Chamber of Commerce”) is the institutional representative of more than 45 million companies in over 100 countries with a mission to make business work for everyone, every day, everywhere. Particularly, ICC represents business interests at the highest levels of intergovernmental decision-making, whether at the World Trade Organization, the United Nations or the G20.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name is a misspelled version of its official domain name , used for its website and its email addresses. The Complainant states that this misspelling was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademarks and domain name. This assertion is confirmed by the fact that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in a phishing scheme.\r\n\r\nThus, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the trademark, which evidences bad faith.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Respondent has used the domain name in a phishing scheme. Indeed, the Respondent attempted to pass of as one of the Complainant’s employees to receive undue payment. Therefore, the Complainant states that the Responded used the disputed domain name in bad faith, as it is well-established that using a domain name for purposes of phishing or other fraudulent activity constitutes solid evidence of bad faith use.", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.", "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\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).", "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": [ "José Ignacio San Martín" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-04-27 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant owns the following trademark registrations for ICC:\r\n\r\n- International trademark ICC (fig) n° 1235263 registered since 2014-07-29 in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41, 42, 45;\r\n- European Union trademark ICC (fig) n° 012556701 registered since 2014-06-25 in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41, 42, 45.", "decision_domains": { "ICCVVBO.ORG": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }