wwwbbva.com

The Complainant is Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A., of Madrid, Spain, represented by Enrique J. Sirvent of Spain.

The Respondent is Nicolas Zalcberg, Z & A Group, of Montevideo, Uruguay.

The disputed domain name <wwwbbva.com> is registered with Go Daddy Software.

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on June 19, 2003. On June 19, 2003, the Center transmitted by email to Go Daddy Software a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On June 21, 2003, Go Daddy Software transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the administrative, billing, and technical contact. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 26, 2003. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 16, 2003. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 18, 2003.

The Center appointed Daniel Peña as the sole panelist in this matter on July 28, 2003. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

The Complainant owns the registrations for the trademark "BBVA" in many countries around the world. The Complainant’s rights in several of the trademarks "BBVA" pre-date the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant's registered trademarks include, amongst many others, the following:

US Trademarks:

Spain Trademarks:

Uruguay Trademarks:

The Complainant has also protected its trademarks internationally. BBVA registrations also exist in Andorra, Argentina, Benelux region, Brazil, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Lebanon, Mexico, Peru, Puerto Rico, South Africa, Swaziland, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

BBVA is one of the major players in the European banking market. The more than 90 thousand persons who together make up the BBVA Group, serving 35 million customers in 37 countries through a network of 7,500 branches, will continue to manage 400 million Euros to our characteristic high standards of excellence and individual responsibility, to the benefit of the organization, customers, shareholders and society as a whole. The international presence of BBVA now dates back a century. In 1902, Banco de Bilbao opened a branch in Paris and, in 1918, another in London. In this respect, the group was several decades ahead of other Spanish banks.

BBVA is involved in corporate, retail and international banking, and other financial services. The Complainant BBVA is one of the leading banks in the Spanish market. The Complainant BBVA is listed on nine different exchanges and operates in over 35 different countries.

The <wwwbbva.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BBVA mark as the two are almost identical. In fact, the Respondent’s Domain Name incorporates the BBVA mark in its entirety combined with the letters "www".

The Respondent is not commonly known, as an individual, business, or other organization by any product or service related with the term "bbva" alone or combined with the denomination of the products or services that could eventually offer in the market. The Respondent is not known in the market with the name BBVA and has not registered any mark containing this term.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. Because of the international notoriety of the Complainant’s trademark BBVA and the high profile of the bank and the BBVA web site, the Respondent would have been fully aware of the Complainant’s and/or BBVA's rights and reputation prior to the registration of the disputed domain name and was in any event on constructive notice of the trademark registrations and other domain name registrations. The disputed domain name represents an example of "typo-squatting," which is a deliberate attempt to exploit a common typographical mistake of Internet users or search engines to lure Internet users to the Respondent’s site. The disputed domain name is used to divert Internet users to gambling services offered by the Respondent's site directly or by an organization for which the Respondent acts as a portal.

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

Given that the domain name <wwwbbva.com> is not identical to trademark BBVA, registered and used in several countries by the Complainant, the Panel must examine if both expressions are confusingly similar.

The inclusion of the letters "www" as the initial part of the domain name registration allows this Panel to infer that the Respondent wanted to use this group of letters that stand for "world wide web".

With respect to the first requirement, the Panel considers that the fact of including the letter "w" three times does not make a sufficient difference between the domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. On the contrary, and considering the requirement that the disputed domain name and the trademark must be confusingly similar, this Panel believes that the expression <wwwbbva> is similar to trademark BBVA and, therefore, may confuse the public about the business origin, the quality of products or services, about the title-holder of the domain name and, above all, about the actual owner of the web page published under the disputed domain name.

The Complainant has shown sufficient evidence about his legitimate rights over the expression "bbva" not only in his country of origin but also in a number of other countries. The Complainant has also shown evidence about the extensive use of such expression in trade during several years so as to reach the recognition of the public.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not commonly known, as an individual, business, or other organization by any product or service related with the term "bbva" alone or combined with the denomination of the products or services that could eventually offer in the market.By not replying to the Complainant’s contentions, the Respondent has failed to show evidence to this Panel about his possible legitimate rights in the disputed domain name.

In accordance with the Rules, the Panel shall first examine whether bath faith existed at the time of registration and then whether the use of the disputed domain name is also a bad faith use.

With regard to the domain name registration, the Panel considers that bad faith existed since the Respondent registered the domain name mainly in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name Policy 4(b)(ii). This is particularly due to the ample recognition that trademark BBVA possess internationally.

With respect to bad faith use, both the evidence presented by the Complainant and the Panel's own investigations, show that the disputed domain name has been re-directed to an on-line casino page located at "www.elcasino.com". This suggests that the use of the domain name by the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to his web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his web site or location or of a product or service on his web site or location.

Additionally, there is evidence that during these proceedings, the parties exchanged e-mails regarding the price of a possible transfer. In such e-mails the Respondent refers to a price of four thousand US dollars, an amount that exceeds the customary cost of acquisition of a domain name. In accordance with the Policy, the foregoing is another argument supporting what has been previously indicated by this Panel about the existence of bad faith in the registration and use of the disputed domain name.

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, <wwwbbva.com> be transferred to the Complainant.