According to paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP Policy the Complainant is required to prove each of the following three elements to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain names:
(i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and
(iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
I. RIGHTS AND IDENTITY OR CONFUSING SIMILARITY
The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademarks corresponding and/or containing the distinctive part "CREDIT AGRICOLE" since 1978. The Complainant's trademarks were registered prior to the registration of the disputed domain names (26 August 2017) and are widely well-known.
The Panel finds that the domain names <CRADITAGRI.COM> and <CRADITAGRI.ORG> are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks, since it is consensus view of UDRP Panels that adding, deleting or substituting letters or numbers of the complainant’s registered mark does not preclude a finding of confusing similarity. Therefore, slight differences, as the substitution of the letter “e” of the word "credit" with the letter "a" and deleting the letters "c" "o" "l" "e" of the word "agricole" of the Complainant’s marks is insufficient to negate the confusingly similarity between the disputed domain names and the Complainant's marks.
UDRP Panels also agree that the top-level domain (TLD), in this case <.com> and <.org>, is usually to be ignored for the purpose of determination of identity or confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark of the complainant as it is a technical requirement of registration (see paragraph 1.11.1 WIPO Overview 3.0).
Additionally, the review of the websites to which the domain names resolve, reproducing the dominant elements from the Complainant's site and containing the Complainant's well-known marks with the purpose of misleading Internet users and obtaining sensitive or confidential personal information, makes it clear that Respondent's intention was to trade off the Complainant's and its marks' reputation and it support the finding of confusing similarity.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven the first element of the paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP Policy.
II. LACK OF RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS
It is a consensus view of UDRP Panels that the Complainant shall establish a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name to shift the burden of proof to the Respondent (see paragraph 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0: "[...] where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.")
The Complainant has no relationship with the Respondent whatsoever. The Respondent has never received any approval of the Complainant, expressed or implied, to use the Complainant's rademarks or any other mark identical or confusingly similar to such marks.
As per the WHOIS records, confirmed by the Registrar, the Respondent is Walter Mauche and there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the domain names <CRADITAGRI.COM> and <CRADITAGRI.ORG> or has acquired any rights in a trademark or trade name corresponding to the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain names resolve to a website which is a copycat version of the Complainant's site, using the same for phising activities which is not a bona fide, legitimate or fair use under the UDRP Policy.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established its prima facie case and the Respondent, in not formally responding to the Complaint, has failed to invoke any of the circumstances, which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Thus, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has met the second requirement of the paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP Policy.
III. BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE
Considering that:
- the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names confusingly similar to well-known trademarks of the Complainant, by substituting the letter "e" with the letter "a" in the word "credit" and deleting the letters "c" "o" "l" "e" of the word "agricole", creating in such way a likelihood of confusion with such marks;
- the domain names are used to host a copycat version of the Complainant's website and for phishing activities this Panel finds that the Complainant has discharged the burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the UDRP Policy and the domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
|