{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105888", "time_of_filling": "2023-10-17 09:49:13", "domain_names": [ "b4banking.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BFORBANK" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "AMIT RAWAT (AMITRAWAT)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

On October 5, 2023, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name <b4banking.com<\/span>>.<\/p>\n

On October 12, 2023, the Complainant filed this UDRP complaint concerning the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

On October 18, 2023, the Respondent submitted an informal response via the domain name dispute resolution service provider (“Provider”) online platform.<\/p>\n

On October 19, 2023, the Complainant emailed a template settlement form to the Respondent.<\/p>\n

On October 27, 2023, the Complainant sent a follow-up e-mail to the Respondent regarding the completion of the settlement form.<\/p>\n

According to the record, it does not appear that the Respondent replied to either of the Complainant’s e-mails mentioned above regarding a potential settlement.<\/p>\n

On November 2, 2023, the Respondent filed its formal response via the Provider online platform.<\/p>\n

On November 2, 2023, the Complainant filed an offer for amicable settlement via the Provider online platform.<\/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": "

COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n

Key aspects of the Complainants‘ contentions are summarized below.<\/p>\n

Complainant’s Background<\/em><\/p>\n

The Complainant is a 100% online bank launched in October 2009 by the French Crédit Agricole Regional Banks. The Complainant, through its BFORBANK brand, offers daily banking, savings, investment and credit (consumer and real estate) services for more than 200 000 customers.<\/p>\n

Registration of the disputed domain name<\/em><\/p>\n

On October 5, 2023, the Respondent Amit Rawat - located in India - registered the disputed domain name <b4banking.com>. The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links, and has MX servers configured.<\/p>\n

First UDRP Element - disputed domain name is Confusingly Similar to Complainant’s Trademark<\/em><\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its BFORBANK registered  trademark, because (i) the substitution of the letters “FOR” by the number “4” (pronounced “four”) is phonetically identical to those letters and is a very common abbreviation for this syllable; (ii) the addition of the letters “ING” is not sufficient to rule out a risk of confusion as the term “BANKING” refers to the Complainant’s activity, and (iii) the inclusion of the top level TLD “.com“ should be disregarded.<\/p>\n

Second UDRP Element – The Respondent has no Rights or Legitimate Interests in the disputed domain name<\/em><\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent (i) is not commonly known as the disputed domain name, (ii) is not known to or affiliated with or authorized by or under license to the Complainant, (iii) the use of the disputed domain name for a website with commercial links is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate use.<\/p>\n

Third UDRP Element – The disputed domain name was Registered and is Being Used in Bad Faith<\/em><\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that because (i) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s  trade mark, (ii) the registration of the disputed domain name happened several years after the registration of the Complainant’s trade mark, during which time it established a strong reputation therein, and (iii) all the results of a Google search of the term “B4 BANKING“ refer to Complainant; it is therefore “inconcievable“ that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without actual knowledge of the Complainant’s rights in the trademark.<\/p>\n

The Complainant contends the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own website thanks to the Complainant’s trademarks for its own commercial gain, which is evidence of bad faith, because the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links.<\/p>\n

Further, the Complainant contends because the disputed domain name has been set up with MX servers, it could be used for email purposes and any email emanating from the disputed domain name could not be used for good faith purposes.<\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n

Key aspects of the Respondent‘s contentions are summarized below.<\/p>\n

First UDRP Element - disputed domain name is Confusingly Similar to Complainant’s Trademark<\/em><\/p>\n

The Respondent claims that the disputed domain name <b4banking.com> may be distinguished from the Complainants “bforbank“ mark.<\/p>\n

Second UDRP Element – The Respondent has no Rights or Legitimate Interests in the disputed domain name<\/em><\/p>\n

Regarding their proposed use, the Respondent contends that they intended to use the disputed domain name for “personal use“ and that they had hired people to work on the project associated therewith.<\/p>\n

Third UDRP Element – The disputed domain name was Registered and is Being Used in Bad Faith<\/em><\/p>\n

The Respondent asserts they first heard of the Complainant due to the instant proceedings. The Respondent claims they had no knowledge of any trademarks or potential conflicts at the time of acquisition of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

The Respondent stated that they would be open to an amicable settlement and the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant for “compensation“ and a “resolution that benefits both parties“. The Respondent claims “I am already incurring losses as I have hired a few people to start working on this project in advance“.<\/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 not, 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 not, 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": "Rejected", "panelists": [ "Claire Kowarsky" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-11-21 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant relies on its registered European trademark:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Mark<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Territory<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Registration No.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Application date<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Registration date<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Classes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

BFORBANK (word)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

EM<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

008335598<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

02 June 2009<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

08 December 2009<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9, 35, 36, 38<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 The Complainant also owns the domain name <bforbank.com>, registered since January 16, 2009.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "b4banking.com": "REJECTED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }