The Complainant is an international insurance company with a presence in 33 countries in Europe, Asia and Latin America. The Complainant states the term “CARDIF” is a contraction of “Compagnie d'Assurance et d'Investissement de France”.<\/p>\n
The Complainant owns the European trademark CARDIF n°004105185 registered since November 3, 2004 and several domain names “CARDIF”, such as <cardif.com> and <bnpparibascardif.com>.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on December 5, 2022 and resolves to an inactive page. Besides, it has been used in the view of Complainant in a phishing scheme.<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its previous trademark registration on the term CARDIF and its domain names associated, because the disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s registered trademark CARDIF in its entirety.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name only differs from the trademark CARDIF by the addition of the term “GESTION” (meaning “MANAGEMENT”).<\/p>\n
Moreover, the Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark CARDIF. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and that he is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends further that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by him in any way to use the trademark CARDIF. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.<\/p>\n
Besides, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page and it has been used in a phishing scheme. The Complainant asserts that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to pass itself off as one of the Complainant’s employees, in order to phish for personal information and receive undue payment. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy 4 (c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy 4(c)(iii).<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark CARDIF. The Complainant asserts that the addition of the term “GESTION” cannot be coincidental, as all the Google results of a search of the terms “CARDIF GESTION” refer to the Complainant.<\/p>\n
Moreover, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to pass off as the Complainant in order to phish for personal information and to receive undue payment.<\/p>\n
Thus, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is inconceivable in the view of Complainant that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the trademark, which evidences bad faith.<\/p>\n
Finally, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in a phishing scheme. The Respondent attempted to pass of as one of the Complainant’s employees. Therefore, the Complainant states that the Respondent used the disputed domain name in bad faith, as it is well-established that using a domain name for purposes of phishing or other fraudulent activity constitutes solid evidence of bad faith use.<\/p>\n
<\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
The Complainant submits that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.<\/p>\n
NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Jan Schnedler" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-01-19 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant owns the European trademark CARDIF n°004105185 registered since November 3, 2004.<\/p>\n
The Complainant is also the owner of several domain names “CARDIF”, such as:<\/p>\n
<cardif.com>, registered since January 27, 1998;<\/p>\n
<bnpparibascardif.com> registered since April 12, 2011.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "cardif-gestion.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }