WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center


Caisse Nationale des Allocations Familiales v. Trafficmedia Internal

Case No. D2012-0613

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Caisse Nationale des Allocations Familiales of Paris Cedex France, represented by SELARL du Manoir de Juaye, France.

The Respondent is Trafficmedia Internal of Livingston, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <lacaf.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Black Ice Domains, Inc.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 23, 2012. On March 23 and 26, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to Black Ice Domains, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 26, 2012, Black Ice Domains, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 30, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 19, 2012. The Response was filed on April 1, 2012.

The Center appointed Rodrigo Velasco Santelices as the sole panelist in this matter on May 4, 2012. 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 Panel was then contacted by the Center informing that the disputed domain name had been transferred to Complainant, but that Complainant required a formal decision by the Panel to accept the transfer of the Domain Name.

4. Factual Background

Caisse Nationale des Allocations Familiales (CNAF) is a national public authority in France. Together with the family benefits offices (Caisses d’Allocation Familiales) it forms the family branch of the social security system.

To optimize its service, CNAF has provided its recipients with a "National" website where, after registering, they may view their account management and privileged information. The site, reserved on April 3, 1998, is accessible at”www.caf.fr”.

It has registered the following trademarks:

- The French word trademark CAF registered on October 26, 1989 under number 1718238;

- The French semi-figurative trademark ALLOCATIONS FAMILIALES CAF registered on March 25, 1999 under number 99782908.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its CAF trade mark.

The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

Finally, the Complainant contends that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the registration is an abusive registration within the meaning of sub-paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv) of the Policy.

B. Respondent

A Response was filed by Respondent on April 1, 2012 indicating We have bought the domain by mistake through an automated system. We are willing to transfer the domain to the complainant with no charge.”

6. Discussion and Findings

In light of the fact that the Respondent has consented to the relief requested by Complainant, and the Domain Name has already been transferred to Complainant, the Panel considers that it is not necessary to review the facts supporting the Complaint. However since the Complainant has requested the issuance of a decision from this Panel, I am left to decide the appropriate procedure to conclude the case in a situation not directly addressed by the Rules. Several provisions provide guidance. Paragraph 10(a) of the Rules gives the Panel the discretion to conduct the proceeding in such manner as it deems appropriate under the Policy and the Rules. Paragraph 10(c) of the Rules requires the Panel to “ensure that the proceeding takes place with due expedition.” Paragraph 4.13 and a number of the prior panel decisions cited in paragraph 4.13 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”) also provide support for the Panel making an order on the basis of Respondent’s consent to the requested transfer.

7. Decision

Accordingly, this Panel, in compliance with the Complainant’s request concludes that the transfer of the Domain Name has been correctly done and finds that since there is no longer a disputed domain name there is no need of analysis of the elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

Rodrigo Velasco Santelices
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 16, 2012