{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104372", "time_of_filling": "2022-02-23 08:50:13", "domain_names": [ "auxifip-groupe.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "CREDIT AGRICOLE LEASING & FACTORING S.A." ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "1987" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant, CREDIT AGRICOLE LEASING & FACTORING, is a major leasing and factoring player though France and in Europe. It employs 2,392 people and has around 215,000 customers. \r\nThe Complainant holds the trademark registration “AUXIFIP” and domain name bearing “AUXIFIP”.\r\nOn August 31, 2021; the Respondent registered the disputed domain name . Although the disputed domain name was used before the fling of the complaint as seen in the provided evidence, it is currently inactive. ", "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\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n1. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR\r\nThe Complainant explains that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark “AUXIFIP” as it bears the Complainant’s “AUXIFIP” trademark as a whole with the addition of the generic term “GROUPE” (for “GROUP”) and a hyphen which is not sufficient to avoid likelihood of confusion. The Complainant states that the GTLD is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded.\r\nThe Complainant refers to earlier panel decisions including Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, “a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP”, as well as, Gardline Surveys Ltd v. Domain Finance Ltd. Forum Case No. FA 153545, “the addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name.\". \r\n\r\n2. NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights on the disputed domain name as the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name and as the Respondent does not hold any trademark for “AUXIFIP”.\r\nThe Complainant also states that the Respondent is neither affiliated nor authorized by the Complainant in any way.\r\nMoreover, the Complainant alleges that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark “AUXIFIP”.\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use, as it was offering loan services in competition with the services provided by the Complainant and those covered by its trademark.\r\n\r\n3. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS USED IN BAD FAITH\r\nThe Complainant indicates that the Respondent intentionally registered a domain name identical to Complainant’s trademark in order to attract users to its website for commercial gain by using the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement. \r\nThe Complainant argues that “AUXIFIP” trademark consists of a distinctive word without any signification and the Respondent, who is French, reasonably knows the existence of “AUXIFIP” trademark belonging to the Complainant.\r\nThe Complainant asserts that considering the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent knew about the Complainant and its rights before the registration of the disputed domain name. Besides, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name was used to redirect the users to a website providing financial services such as consumer loans, which are in competition with the services offered by the Complainant, and those covered by the trademark. \r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name is not being used for any bona fide offering and this fact, not being used of the disputed domain name, alone is sufficient to prove the bad faith of the Respondent according to many Forum decisions.\r\nAccordingly, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\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": [ "Mrs Selma Ünlü" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-04-04 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has submitted evidence, which the Panel accepts, showing that it is the registered owner of the following:\r\n- the French trademark AUXIFIP (registration n°4722602) dated January 18, 2021.\r\nMoreover, the Complainant is also the owner of the domain names bearing the sign “AUXIFIP” such as the domain names .", "decision_domains": { "AUXIFIP-GROUPE.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }