{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101203",
    "time_of_filling": "2016-04-12 10:21:38",
    "domain_names": [
        "WWW-CREDIT-AGRICOLE.COM"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Maxime Benoist)",
    "respondent": [
        "Xuan  Dong"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a leading retail banking institute in France and one of the largest banks in Europe.\r\n\r\nFirst financing the French economy and major European players, 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 Complainant owns several trademarks including the word elements \"CREDIT AGRICOLE\".\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of domain names, including the same word elements \"CREDIT AGRICOLE\", such as in the domain name <credit-agricole.com>.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <www-credit-agricole.com> was registered on 29 March 2016 and is not used in connection with an active web site.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent filed nonstandard communication instead of using the Response form provided by the CAC, as required by the UDRP Supplemental Rules. This nonstandard communication does not provide, inter alia, for an identification of any other legal proceedings that have been commenced or terminated in connection with or relating to the domain name that is the subject of the complaint (5 (c)(vi) of the Policy), state that a copy of the response including any annexes has been sent or transmitted to the Complainant (5 (c)(vii) of the Policy), nor conclude with the statement provided in (5 (c)(vi) of the Policy) followed by the signature (in any electronic format) of the Respondent or its authorized representative.\r\nThe Respondent asked for suspension of the proceedings. However, the Complainant refused to agree to a suspension.",
    "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\nCOMPLAINANT's Contentions:\r\n\r\nI.\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name <www-credit-agricole.com> is confusingly similar to its trademarks \"CREDIT AGRICOLE\". \r\n\r\nThe addition of the element \"www\" at the beginning of the disputed domain name, separated from the word elements \"CREDIT AGRICOLE\" by a hyphen, is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark \"CREDIT AGRICOLE\". The domain name can be considered as a case of typosquatting.\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, as stated in a previous case, typosquatting is defined as “a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the string in a domain name wishing and hoping that Internet users will inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for products or services associated with the targeted trademark and thereby be directed to a web presence controlled by the domain name’s registrant” (see NAF Case FA1409001580790, Tumblr, Inc v. minxiaowei).\r\n\r\nPrior panels have established confusing similarity where the domain name(s) at issue take advantage of common misspellings or typographical errors. Specifically, panels have found that adding “www” to the beginning of the domain name still results in confusing similarity (see NAF case FA 95092, Bank of Am. Corp. v. InterMos). \r\nFurther, the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademarks \"CREDIT AGRICOLE\" of the Complainant has not changed by the adding of the element \"www\". It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the name of the Complainant, his trademarks and his domain names associated.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that many UDRP decisions have also confirmed the Complainant’s rights and notoriety providing a list of such cases.\r\n\r\nThus, the Complainant concludes that the disputed domain name <www-credit-agricole.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark \"CREDIT AGRICOLE\".\r\n\r\nII.\r\nThe Complainant states the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the domain name(s).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name <www-credit-agricole.com>. The Complainant has not entered into any business relation with the Respondent.\r\n\r\nNeither a license nor any other authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademarks \"CREDIT AGRICOLE\" or apply for the registration of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the website linked to by the disputed domain name displays a registrar parking site containing pay-per-click links to site offering services similar to Complainant's. Previous UDRP panels stated that “the operation of a pay-per-click website under a confusingly similar domain name was not a bona fide offering of goods or services under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy (NAF case no. FA 918556, Disney Enters., Inc. v. Kamble).\r\n\r\nThis confirms that the Respondent does not have any demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests on the disputed domain name <www-credit-agricole.com>.\r\n\r\nIII.\r\nThe domain name(s) has been registered and is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that its trademarks \"CREDIT AGRICOLE\" are widely known. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademarks \"CREDIT AGRICOLE\" in the following cases.\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the website in relation with the disputed domain name displays a registrar parking page containing pay-per-clicks links. \r\n\r\nBased on this, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name <www-credit-agricole.com> in bad faith.",
    "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": "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": [
        "Dominik Eickemeier"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2016-05-19 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks \"Credit Agricole\" in various countries including the US for, inter alia, banking services.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "WWW-CREDIT-AGRICOLE.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}