WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Credit Agricole SA v. Margaret Robinson

Case No. DWS2020-0001

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Credit Agricole SA, France, represented by Nameshield, France.

The Respondent is Margaret Robinson, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <creditagricole.ws> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 31, 2020. On January 31, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 31, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint.

The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 5, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on February 6, 2020. Upon request of the Complainant, the proceeding was suspended on February 6, 2020, pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 17. The proceeding was reinstituted on February 13, 2020.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 19, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 10, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 11, 2020.

The Center appointed Daniel Peña as the sole panelist in this matter on March 30, 2020. 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant assists its clients’ projects in France and around the world, in all areas of banking and trades associated with it: insurance management asset leasing and factoring, consumer credit, corporate and investment.

The Complainant owns several registrations worldwide for the trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE, among others, the following:

- CREDIT AGRICOLE, International Registration number 1064647, registered on January 4, 2011; and,
- CA CREDIT AGRICOLE, European Union Registration number 005505995, registered on December 20, 2007.

The Complainant is also the owner of domain names, such as <credit-agricole.com> registered since December 31, 1999 and <creditagricole.com> registered since June 10, 2001.

The disputed domain name points to a parking site.

The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on January 14, 2020.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts that the CREDIT AGRICOLE mark is a well-known mark that has been registered in numerous jurisdictions prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant is a large bank assurance group in Europe with 51 million retail customers in France and 141,000 employees worldwide.

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark.

The Complainant argues that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because the Respondent (a) does not have an license or authority to register or use the Complainant’s CREDIT AGRICOLE mark, (b) is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, (c) is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way, and (d) is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because (a) the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s well-known trademark, (b) it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without actual knowledge or the Complainant’s trademark, noting the distinctiveness and reputation of the mark, (c) the disputed domain name resolves to a parked page with active MX servers, and (d) it is not possible to conceive of any plausible, actual, or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name that would not be illegitimate.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied:

(i) the disputed domain name is 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 name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and are being used in bad faith.

Considering these requirements, the Panel rules as follows:

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has clearly shown that it has rights in the registered CREDIT AGRICOLE trademarks.

The disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's CREDIT AGRICOLE mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety. Forest Laboratories, Inc. v. Awad Kajouk, WIPO Case No. D2007-1650. The addition of the country-code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.ws” has no legal significance nor does it function to distinguish Respondent’s use of Complainant’s trademark. Volvo Trademark Holding AB v. Tarek Abd El Moaty, WIPO Case No. DWS2004-0001 (addition of “.ws” does not change the fact that the domain is identical to Complainant’s famous VOLVO marks); Sherwin-Williams Company et al. v. Tom Lento, WIPO Case No. DWS2000-0002 (addition of the phrase “.ws” is non-distinctive because it is a gTLD required for registration of a domain name).

The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant bears the burden of proof in establishing this requirement. In view of the difficulties inherent in proving a negative and because the relevant information is mainly in the possession of the Respondent, it is enough for the Complainant to establish a prima facie case which, if not rebutted by sufficient evidence from the Respondent will lead to this ground being set forth.

Refraining from submitting a Response, the Respondent has brought to the Panel’s attention no circumstances from which the Panel could infer that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Panel will now examine the Complainant’s arguments regarding the absence of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in connection with the disputed domain name.

The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use the Complainant’s trademarks in a domain name or in any other manner.

The Respondent did not submit a Response or attempt to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Panel draws adverse inferences from this failure, where appropriate, in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 14(b).

Furthermore, the disputed domain name, which is identical to the Complainant’s trademark, carries a high risk of implied affiliation and cannot constitute fair use as it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.5.1.

The Panel finds the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be considered evidence of the registration and use of a disputed domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant (the owner of the trademark or service mark) or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name;

(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct;

(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.

In the Panel’s view a finding of bad faith may be made where the Respondent “knew or should have known” of the registration and/or use of the trademark prior to registering the disputed domain name. In this case, the widespread commercial recognition of the CREDIT AGRICOLE marks is such that the Respondent, must have had knowledge of the trademark before registering the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that the Respondent has registered a domain name that is identical to the Complainant’s well-known trademark, with the addition of the ccTLD “.ws”, in order to take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s trademark.

As to use in bad faith, the Complainant says that, whilst the disputed domain name has not been put to any use in connection with an active website, since the Respondent has held the disputed domain name for nearly one month. It has long been held in UDRP decisions that the passive or inactive holding of a domain name that incorporates a registered trademark, without a legitimate Internet purpose, may indicate that the domain name is being used in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Jupiters Limited v. Aaron Hall, WIPO Case No. D2000-0574. The WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3, describes the circumstances under which the passive holding of a domain will be considered to be a bad faith use: “While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put”. See Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Armando Machado,WIPO Case No. D2018-0082. The totality of the circumstances in this case, including the reputation of Complainant’s trademark, lack of response, and implausibility of any good faith use, support a finding of bad faith use.

The Panel finds that the evidence produced in this case taken as a whole clearly supports a finding that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been met.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <creditagricole.ws> be transferred to the Complainant.

Daniel Peña
Sole Panelist
Date: April 13, 2020