{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101404", "time_of_filling": "2017-01-05 09:09:27", "domain_names": [ "credit-agricole.email", "5-credit-agricole.com", "4-credit-agricole.com", "3-credit-agricole.com", "2-credit-agricole.com", "1-credit-agricole.com", "credit-agricole-mail.info" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A." ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Maxime Benoist)", "respondent": [ "William Phillippe" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nCREDIT AGRICOLE S.A. (hereinafter the Complainant) is a leader in the retail banking field in France and one of the largest banks in Europe. \r\n\r\nThe Disputed domain names <5-credit-agricole.com>, <4-credit-agricole.com>, <3-credit-agricole.com>, <2-credit-agricole.com>, <1-credit-agricole.com>, , and (the Disputed domain names) were all registered on 2016-12-31 with the Registrar Tucows Domains.\r\n", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any pending or decided proceeding related to the Disputed domain names.", "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that: \r\n\r\n1. The Disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks\r\n\r\nThe Disputed domain names <5-credit-agricole.com>, <4-credit-agricole.com>, <3-credit-agricole.com>, <2-credit-agricole.com>, <1-credit-agricole.com> are used to display a link which redirects to an URL associated with the Disputed domain name with the URL “http:\/\/credit-agricole.email\/”. This URL displays a copy of the official home page of the Complainant and a false online authentication account. It constitutes an important risk of phishing. For its part, the Disputed domain name is currently inactive.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further states that the Disputed domain names <5-credit-agricole.com>, <4-credit-agricole.com>, <3-credit-agricole.com>, <2-credit-agricole.com>, <1-credit-agricole.com>, and are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CREDIT AGRICOLE trademarks and associated domain names. Also, the Disputed domain name is identical to the CREDIT AGRICOLE trademarks and associated domain names.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the addition at the beginning of the Disputed domain names of the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 separated from the trademark by a hyphen, with the use of the gTLD “.com”, or using the word “mail” at the end of the Disputed domain name for with the gTLD “.info”, are not sufficient elements to escape the conclusion that the Disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks and are linked to the Complainant.\r\n\r\nIn support of this thesis the Complainant asserts and documents that numerous UDRP decisions have recognized that the addition of a generic term to a trademark does not create a new or different right to the mark or diminish confusing similarity. \r\n\r\nRegarding the Disputed domain name , the identical reproduction of the trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE and the use of the gTLD “.email” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the CREDIT AGRICOLE trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further assert s that it is well established that gTLDs may typically be disregarded in the assessment under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy when comparing disputed domain names and trademarks. \r\n\r\n2. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed domain names\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with or authorized by CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A. in any way. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed domain names, and he is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business dealings with, the Respondent.\r\n\r\nNeither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s CREDIT AGRICOLE trademarks, or to apply for registration of the Disputed domain names in the name of the Complainant.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the website associated with the Disputed domain name displays a content highly similar to the official website of the Complainant. Indeed, the Respondent displays the Complainant’s figurative trademarks and graphical identity guidelines. The website also displays a false account service connection page.\r\n\r\nFor their part, the Disputed domain names <5-credit-agricole.com>, <4-credit-agricole.com>, <3-credit-agricole.com>, <2-credit-agricole.com>, and <1-credit-agricole.com> display an index page with a link named “404.shtml” which redirects to the URL “http:\/\/credit-agricole.email\/ which is associated with the Disputed domain name . These Disputed domain names were used for phishing activities.\r\n\r\nFor its part, is currently inactive.\r\n\r\nPanels have also found that an intention to divert or deceive Internet users by using the marks of others does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. \r\n\r\nThe registration of the Disputed domain names and the redirection is a clear case of phishing. It is agreed that acts of phishing do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.\r\n\r\nThus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest on the Disputed domain name. Indeed, the Respondent has registered the Disputed domain name only in order to create a likelihood of confusion and for commercial gain.\r\n\r\nFinally, past panels have held that using a domain name in a fraudulent scheme to deceive internet users into providing personal information is not a bona fide offering of goods and services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.\r\n \r\nGiven the content of the website, it is clear that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s rights therein at the time it registered the Disputed domain name, and the Respondent registered it with the aim of creating such phishing website.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed domain names.\r\n\r\n3. The Disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith\r\n\r\nGiven the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the Disputed domain names with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent registered the Disputed domain names with the intention of taking advantage of the Complainant's trademarks.\r\n\r\nThe Disputed domain names have also been registered by the Respondent in an effort to take advantage of the goodwill the Complainant has built up in its CREDIT AGRICOLE trademarks, and to unduly benefit from creating a diversion of the internet users of the Complainant by pretending to be the official website of the Complainant. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is attempting to pass itself off as the Complainant by using its CREDIT AGRICOLE registered trademarks in violation of the Policy. Panels have found such passing off to violate the Policy. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant therefore finds that the Respondent has registered the Disputed domain name in bad faith and has used the Disputed domain names to attract Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to source, affiliation or endorsement, in the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and thus has acted in bad faith.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nIndeed, the Respondent's sole response consists of two emails, dated January 26, 2017 and January 30, 2017 respectively.\r\n\r\nIn these emails the wife of Mr. Phillippe, on his behalf, affirmed that neither she nor her husband have registered the Disputed domain names, and has unequivocally claimed they were not involved with the registration of the Disputed domain names.\r\n\r\nIn addition she affirmed they have received two letters from the Czech Arbitration Court (one was concerning case 101402) where her husband was indicated as the Respondent, and thus asked to be assured that it was not a scam considering they (she and her husband) did not own the Disputed domain names. In the second email, she stated: “… omissis … Neither he [the husband] nor I have any connection to or knowledge of the domain names listed in the complaints. On the advice of our lawyer, he will not be creating an account on the website listed in the letters as it is our opinion that these letters have been sent to him either in error or bad faith. … omissis …”\r\n\r\nNo further response followed.\r\n", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Disputed domain names are 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 names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy).", "bad_faith": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the the Disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii)of the Policy).", "procedural_factors": "There are a number of procedural complications in this case. They are as follows:\r\n\r\n(i) The Complainant filed the Complaint against William Phillippe;\r\n\r\n(ii) William Phillippe (through his wife) claims he did not register the Disputed domain names;\r\n\r\n(iii) The response to the complaint is not administratively compliant;\r\n\r\n(iv) The Panel decided that an additional fee was due from the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complaint was filed against “William Phillippe, 235 West 108th St #22, New York\", i.e. the registrant listed in the WHOIS database. Therefore, prima facie evidence suggests that \"William Phillippe residing 235 West108th St #22, New York\", registered the Disputed domain names.\r\n\r\nNevertheless, in the emails sent to the CAC on January 26 and 30, 2017 the wife of Mr. Phillippe, on his behalf, affirmed that neither her husband nor she has registered the Disputed domain names. \r\n\r\nIndeed, she firmly and unequivocally claimed they were not involved with the registration of the Disputed domain names.\r\n\r\nOwing to the above contrasting assertions and evidence the Panel, on the balance of probability, believes that the Registrant of the Disputed domain names may have registered them using the name and address of Mr. William Phillippe illegally. \r\n\r\nAs a result, the Panel will refer to the Respondent as the Registrant of the Disputed domain names and not to Mr. Phillippe, and will proceed to a decision accordingly. The Panel has in fact reached this conclusion on the premises that while the result of the proceeding will not be influenced by this decision, on the contrary, the name of Mr. Phillippe (who apparently is also a victim of the Registrant) could be affected.\r\n\r\nFormal Deficiencies of the Response\r\n\r\nThere is no provision regulating the consequences for responses that do not meet the formal requirements comparable to paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP Rules for complaints. Whether and under what conditions responses are to be taken into account if they do not satisfy the formal requirements of paragraph 5 of the UDRP Rules has been determined differently by different panels. The majority of the panelists assume that they are entitled at their discretion to determine whether to consider responses which are formally incorrect (Young Genius Software AB v. MWD, James Vargas, WIPO Case No. D2000-0591 - ).\r\n\r\nA response has been taken into account if, inter alia:\r\n\r\n- The respondent wrongly submitted the response to the complainant and ICANN, and not to the dispute resolution provider (See Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Arun Jose, WIPO Case No. D2000-0263 - );\r\n\r\n- The response was on time but was submitted in handwriting (See Cable News Network LP, LLP v. Manchester Trading, National Arbitration Forum Case No. FA 93634 - );\r\n\r\n- The response exceeded the limit on the number of words imposed by the Supplemental Rules (See Süd-Chemie AG v. tonsil.com, WIPO Case No. D2000-0376 – );\r\n\r\n- The response was submitted by fax (See Veritas DGC Inc. v. The Collectors Source, National Arbitration Forum Case No. FA 94425 - ).\r\n\r\nAccount was not taken of a response that was merely submitted by email (See William Hill Organisation Limited v. Seven Oaks Motoring Centre, WIPO Case No. D2000 – 0824 - ).\r\n\r\nIn this case, the Panel finds that the fact that the Respondent’s response was submitted solely via email does not prejudice the Complainant and therefore, at its discretion, accepts the Response.\r\n\r\nIndeed, the Panel, having regard to the information available and the circumstances of the case, finds that it is fair to give the named Respondent the chance to present his case and, as will be shown in the following section, this is not detrimental to the Complainant’s case. On the contrary, the assertions made by the wife of Mr. Phillippe reinforce the Complainant’s claims regarding bad faith registration of the Disputed domain names. \r\n\r\nThe Panel’s decision that an additional fee was due from the Complainant is principally motivated by the fact that it is this Panel’s opinion that cases that present circumstances such as those at issue cannot be treated in a simplified decision. \r\n\r\nIn view of all of the above, 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. \r\n", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Dr. Fabrizio Bedarida" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-02-16 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has proven to be the owner of the renowned CREDIT AGRICOLE mark which enjoys protection through many registrations worldwide. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant is, inter alia, the owner of: \r\n\r\nMark CREDIT AGRICOLE (word) International Registration n. 1064647 registered on January 4, 2011 ;\r\n\r\nMark CREDIT AGRICOLE (device) International Registration n. 525634 registered on July 13, 1988;\r\n\r\nMark CREDIT AGRICOLE (device) International Registration n. 441714 registered on October 25, 1978;\r\n\r\nMark CREDIT AGRICOLE (word) European Union Registration n. 006456974 registered on October 23, 2008;\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is also the owner of the following domain names, amongst others: registered on December 31, 1999; registered on June 11, 2001; registered on July 7, 1995; registered on September 22, 2000; registered on January 7, 2002.\r\n\r\n", "decision_domains": { "CREDIT-AGRICOLE.EMAIL": "TRANSFERRED", "5-CREDIT-AGRICOLE.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "4-CREDIT-AGRICOLE.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "3-CREDIT-AGRICOLE.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "2-CREDIT-AGRICOLE.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "1-CREDIT-AGRICOLE.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "CREDIT-AGRICOLE-MAIL.INFO": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }