{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-100712",
    "time_of_filling": "2013-11-27 10:34:24",
    "domain_names": [
        "creditagricoleinter.net"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "CREDIT AGRICOLE SA"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Anne Morin)",
    "respondent": [
        " \t Dhr J P Klijn"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is the leader in retail banking in France and one of the largest banks in Europe. The Complainant assists its clients's projects in France and worldwide 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 <creditagricoleinter.net> was registered on November 6, 2013.\r\n\r\nA cease and desist letter was sent to the Respondent by e-mail on November 15, 2013 to challenge the registration of the <creditagricoleinter.net>  domain name and to ask for its transfer to the Complainant. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not provided an answer to this letter, and therefore the Complainant has initiated this Complaint.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of 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\nThe Complainant contends the following:\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <creditagricoleinter.net> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's earlier trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE, since it contains the Complainant's trademark in its entirety; the addition of the word \"inter\" and of the gTLD \".net\" do not offset the confusingly similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trademark. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. According to WIPO Case Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd. (Case D2003-0455), 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, 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 UDRP.\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the Respondent is not affiliated with, nor authorised by, CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A.  \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and he is not related to the Complainant's business. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name displays a parking page since its registration. Moreover, following the sending of the cease and desist letter, the Respondent has not provided response about this registration.\r\n\r\nFor all reasons above, the Respondent lacks rights or interests in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nAs far as registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith the Complainant's trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE is a widely known trademark. Prior decisions have confirmed the reputation of this trademark (See in particular WIPO Cases No. D2010-1683 and No. D2012-0258).\r\n\r\nGiven the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's marks and uses it for the purpose of misleading and diverting Internet traffic.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the disputed domain name leads to a parking page. In the opinion of the Complainant, the Respondent uses the disputed domain name for the purpose of disturbing the Complainant's business, since by keeping the domain name with parking page, the Respondent prevents the Complainant to develop its business.\r\n\r\nSee WIPO case no. D2010-1683 “Credit Agricole S.A. v. Dick Weisz”\r\nSee WIPO case no. D2012-0258 “Credit Agricole S.A. v. Wang Rongxi”\r\nSee for instance “Ferrari S.p.A v. American Entertainment Group. Inc”, WIPO Case no.D2004-0673",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the 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 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 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": "According to the Domain Name Registrar, the language of the Registration Agreement is Dutch. This is so, because the Domain Name has been registered with a Dutch reseller and the Domain Name Registrant  is Dutch. \r\n\r\nUnder Rule 11(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the \"UDRP Rules\"), \"[u]nless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding\".\r\n\r\nTherefore, since according to the Registrar, the language of the Registration Agreement is Dutch, then the language of this administrative proceeding should also be Dutch. The CAC informed the Complainant of this circumstance, and requested the Complainant to file a revised Complaint. The Complainant complied with the CAC's request, but asked that the language of the proceeding be changed into English for a better understanding by both parties. The Complainant supported its request by stating that the Domain Name consists of the words  CREDIT, AGRICOLE and INTER, that have no specific meaning in Dutch, while CREDIT and INTER is comprehensible in English. \r\n\r\nThe Panel does not believe that the Complainant's argument may justify the change of language from Dutch to English. As a matter of fact, the change of language is permissible whenever it is proved that each party to the proceeding  is able to understand the different language proposed by the other party. The fact that the disputed Domain Name consists of terms comprehensible in English and, at the same time, of terms not in the Dutch language, certainly does not prove that the Respondent understands English.\r\n\r\nAt the same time, the Panel notes that the Domain Name leads to a parking page containing a script in Dutch, and therefore also the use of the Domain Name does not prove that the Complainant is fluent, or at least understands English.\r\n\r\nRule 11(a) of the UDRP Rules confers to the Panel the power to determine which is the appropriate language of the administrative proceeding, having regard to the circumstances of the case.\r\n\r\nIn the Panel's view, to comply with Rule 11(a) of the UDRP Rules, the Panel may make its own investigations. The  Panel \r\nhas therefore visited the English section of the Registrar's website at http:\/\/www.key-systems.net\/english\/homepage.html and has noted that the Registration Agreement is displayed in English and not in Dutch. Moreover, Section 10.6 of the Registration Agreement reads as follows: \"Both, the English and German versions of these terms and conditions are valid and binding. In case of doubt or conflict, however, the German version will prevail\". Therefore, the English version of the Registration Agreement is binding and there is no trace on the Registrar's website of a Registration Agreement in Dutch.\r\n\r\nIn view of the fact that the Registrar's website displays a Registration Agreement in English and not in Dutch, the CAC contacted again the Registrar, to confirm the exact language of the Registration Agreement. Due to this delay, the Panel issued a Non-Standard Communication extending the delivery date of this UDRP decision by 7 days, i.e., until January 30, 2014.\r\n\r\nThe Domain Name Registrar sent a response to the CAC reiterating that the language of the Registration Agreement is Dutch because the Domain Name was sold through a Dutch Reseller to a Dutch Registrant.\r\n\r\nNevertheless, the Panel notes that according to the Whois for the Domain Name, the Registrar for the Domain Name is Key-Systems GmbH. The Whois does not contain any reference to the Dutch reseller, if not the indication of the Registrar's url as http:\/\/www.mijndomein.nl\/. However, the website corresponding to this url does not contain any reference to Key-Systems GmbH. \r\n\r\nIt appears from the above, that the Complainant correctly applied the language of the Registration Agreement as appearing on the Registrar's website and not the language of a Registration Agreement as appearing on a website that seems unrelated to the Registrar.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent could have objected to the use of English as the language of this proceeding, had it filed a Response to the Complaint. However, no Response has been filed in the instant case.  \r\n\r\nAccordingly, following the powers conferred to the Panel by Rule 11(a) of the UDRP Rules, having regard to the circumstances of the case,  the Panel determines that the language of this administrative proceeding coincides with the language of the Registration Agreement as appearing on the Registrar's website, namely English or German. Since both versions of the Registration Agreement are equally valid and binding, the Panel is satisfied with the use of English as the language of this administrative proceeding.\r\n",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Angelica Lodigiani"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2014-01-30 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of several CREDIT AGRICOLE per se and formative trademarks. All these trademarks and relevant details are listed in Annex 2 to the Complaint.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is also the owner of CREDITAGRICOLE domain names. A list of these domain names has been enclosed with the Complaint under Annex 3.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "CREDITAGRICOLEINTER.NET": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}