FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS<\/p>\n
The Complainant claims that it is the leader in retail banking in France and one of the largest banks in Europe. It assists its clients' projects in France and around the world, in all areas of banking and related areas: insurance management, asset leasing and factoring, consumer credit, corporate and investment.<\/p>\n
Complainant’s subsidiary CREDIT AGRICOLE ASSURANCES is the first insurance group in France with consolidated revenues of 37 billion euros in 2021.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on March 7, 2023 and redirects to a parking page.<\/p>\n
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the addition of the generic terms “APP”, “WEB” and especially “ASSURANCES” (that refers to the Complainant’s activity) is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. The gTLD suffix does not play a role in assessing confusing similarity.<\/p>\n
The Complainant also refers to previous UDRP decisions by CAC panels that confirm Complainant’s rights over the term “CA”: CAC Case No. 102757, CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A. v. joe terry <ca-1f.com><\/em>; CAC Case No. 102758, CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A. v. shun peter <ca-if.com>.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/p>\n The Complainant alleges that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and he is not related in any way with the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.<\/p>\n Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark “CA” or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.<\/p>\n The disputed domain name points to a parking page.<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the Respondent did not make any use of the disputed domain name since its registration, and it confirms that the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH<\/p>\n The Complainant’s submissions on the bad faith element of the UDRP can be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n Therefore, the Complainant claims the disputed domain name was registered and being used in bad faith.<\/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's contentions are summarized in the Factual Background section above.<\/span><\/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": [
"Igor Motsnyi"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2023-04-12 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " In this proceeding the Complainant relies on the following trademark registrations with the “CA” word element:<\/p>\n The Complainant also refers to domain names owned by the Complainant that incorporate its “CA” trademark, including <ca-assurances.com> used by one of the Complainant’ subsidiaries.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"app-web-ca-assurances.site": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n
\n