{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104203",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-12-02 09:18:01",
    "domain_names": [
        "creditagricole.one"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "Sergecom"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant, CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A., is the leader in retail banking in France and one of the largest banks in Europe. First financing the French economy and major European player, the Complainant assists its clients' projects in France and around the world, in all areas of banking and trades associated with it: insurance management asset leasing and factoring, consumer credit, corporate and investment.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <creditagricole.one> was registered on 25 November 2021 and redirects to a parking page.\r\n\r\nThe Registrar confirmed that the Respondent is the current registrant of the disputed domain name and that the language of the registration agreement is English.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not filed a Response.",
    "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\r\nThe Complainant made the following contentions:\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 identical to its trademark \"CREDIT AGRICOLE\" because the disputed domain name includes the trademark in its entirety. The Complainant contends that the addition of the hyphen and the new gTLD \".ONE\" is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's trademark and does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to its trademark. The Complainants notes that the applicable Top-Level Domain in a domain name is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusion similarity test.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant mentions an earlier panel decision that confirmed its rights over the terms \"CREDIT AGRICOLE\", particularly the CAC Case No. 103249 concerning <credit-agricole.tech> domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant concludes that the disputed domain name is identical to its trademark \"CREDIT AGRICOLE\".\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 contends 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.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further 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 to the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark \"CREDIT AGRICOLE\", or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainants points to the fact that the disputed domain name is not used. The Complainant contends that Respondent did not make any use of the 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, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in 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 Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known trademark \"CREDIT AGRICOLE\" worldwide, and refers to an earlier decision in the CAC Case No. 101964, where the Panel stated that “The Complainant is a well-known bank with global presence […]. The Panel has no doubt that Complainant's Trademarks are well known around the world”.\r\n\r\nBesides, the Complainant argues that the term \"CREDIT AGRICOLE\" is only known in relation to the Complainant. A Google search on the expression \"CREDIT AGRICOLE\" displays several results, all of them being related to the Complainant and its banking activity.\r\n\r\nThus, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the disputed domain name is not used. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law.\r\n\r\nAs prior UDRP panels have held, the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use.\r\n\r\nOn these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.",
    "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": [
        "Mgr. Vojtěch Chloupek"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-01-09 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant submitted evidence that it is the registered owner of the following rights:\r\n\r\n(i) the EU trademark registration No. 005505995 for \"CA CRÉDIT AGRICOLE\" (device), valid since 20 November 2006, registered for the classes 9, 36 and 38; \r\n\r\n(ii) the EU trademark registration No. 006456974 for \"CREDIT AGRICOLE\" (word), valid since 13 November 2007, registered for the classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38 and 42; and\r\n\r\n(iii) the international registration No. 1064647 for \"CREDIT AGRICOLE\", registered since 4 January 2011 for the classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38 and 42, and designated for Albania and Ukraine.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also provided information, supported by evidence, that it is the registered holder of domain names that include the distinctive trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE, such as <creditagricole.com> (created on 11 June 2001) and <credit-agricole.com> (created on 31 December 1999).",
    "decision_domains": {
        "CREDITAGRICOLE.ONE": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}