{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104146",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-11-11 08:56:13",
    "domain_names": [
        "pacificaassurance.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "CREDIT AGRICOLE SA"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "Midwest Health Services, inc."
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nFounded in 1990, Pacifica is the damage insurance company of the Crédit Agricole group, a subsidiary of Crédit Agricole Assurances since 2009.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <pacificaassurance.com>, registered on July 30, 2004, redirects to a page with commercial links.",
    "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": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\nThe Complainant contends that:\r\n\r\n1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <pacificaassurance.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark \"PACIFICA”.\r\nThe Complainant further affirms that, as a matter of fact, pacificaassurance.com exactly reproduces the trademark “PACIFICA” with the mere addition of the French generic term “assurance” (“insurance” in English), which is a clear reference to the Complainant’s business activity.\r\n\r\n2. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and that the Respondent is not affiliated with or authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and is not related to the Complainant’s business in any way. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business dealings with, the Respondent. \r\n\r\n3. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that owing to the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark, and the fact that the Respondent combined it with the French term “assurance” – which clearly refers to the Complainant’s business activity – it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.\r\nFurthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links, some referring to the insurance sector.\r\nFinally, the Complainant contends that the Respondent registered the domain name in knowledge of the trademark in order to attract internet users for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNO 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": [
        "Dr.  Fabrizio Bedarida"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-12-10 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has proven to be the owner of the PACIFICA (word) mark.\r\nThe Complainant is, inter alia, the owner of the following trademark:\r\nFrench trademark registration no. 1579475 “PACIFICA”, granted on March 9, 1990 and renewed, in classes 16, 35 and 36; and\r\nThe Complainant is also the owner of domain names, including the same distinctive wording PACIFICA, such as <pacifica.fr> registered since February 1, 1996.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "PACIFICAASSURANCE.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}