About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Credit Agricole SA v. Metodi Darzev, Tool Domains Ltd, Case No. DNU2019-0006

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Metodi Darzev, Tool Domains Ltd, Bulgaria, self-represented.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <credit-agricole.nu> is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Openprovider (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 23, 2019. On October 23, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 24, 2019, the Registrar 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 28, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 17, 2019. The Response was filed with the Center on November 1, 2019.

The Center appointed Andrew F. Christie as the sole panelist in this matter on November 5, 2019. 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 is a leader in retail banking in France, and one of the largest banks in Europe. It assists clients in France and around the world in all areas of banking and associated services, including insurance, asset leasing, factoring, consumer credit, and corporate and investment activities.

The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations for the word trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE, including European Union Trade Mark registration number 006456974 (registered October 23, 2008), and International trademark registration number 1064647 (registered on January 4, 2011).

The Complainant is the owner of several domain names incorporating the trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE, including <creditagricole.com>, registered since June 11, 2001.

The disputed domain name was registered on October 16, 2019. The Complainant has provided a screenshot dated October 23, 2019, showing that the disputed domain name then resolved to a website containing a parking page with links related to the Complainant and its activities. At the top of the page are the words “Acheter ce domaine” which means in English “Buy this domain”.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to its trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE, and that the applicable Top-Level Domain identifier may be disregarded when comparing a disputed domain name with a trademark.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name because:

(i) the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name, but instead is known as Tools Domains Ltd;

(ii) the Respondent is not known to, affiliated with, or authorized by, the Complainant in any way;

(iii) the Complainant neither carries out any activity for, nor has any business with, the Respondent;

(iv) the Respondent has not been granted any license or authorization to make use of the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE, or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name;

(v) the disputed domain name redirects to a parking page with commercial links related to the Complainant and its activities which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; and

(vi) the disputed domain name is being offered for sale.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because:

(i) given the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE, it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without actual knowledge of the Complainant’s rights in that trademark;

(ii) as the disputed domain name redirects to a parking page with commercial links related to the Complainant and its activities, the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to a website through use of the Complainant’s trademark;

(iii) the website resolving from the disputed domain name displays the message “Acheter ce domain” which means in English “Buy this domain”; and

(iv) the Respondent has demonstrated a pattern of bad faith registrations as it has registered other domain names containing third-party trademarks, such as <boursorama.nu>, <boehringer-award.nu> and <boehringer-ingelheim.nu>.

B. Respondent

In relation to whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, and to whether the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Respondent simply states that it “objects the arguments made by the Complainant”. No argument or reasons for these objections was provided.

In relation to whether the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith, the Respondent states that it “objects the arguments made by the Complainant” and asserts that:

(i) the disputed domain name was not registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring it to the Complainant, or a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs;

(ii) the disputed domain name was not registered in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, and the Respondent has not engaged in a pattern of such conduct;

(iii) the Complainant and the Respondent are not competitors, and the disputed domain name was not registered by the Respondent primarily to disrupt the Complainant’s business; and

(iv) the disputed domain name was not registered by the Respondent in an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. The Respondent did not provide any explanation as to why it didregister the disputed domain name.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Once the country-code Top-Level Domain “.nu” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), the disputed domain name consists of the whole of the Complainant’s registered word trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE, with a hyphen substituting for the space between the two words. The substitution of the hyphen for the space does not avoid the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent is not a licensee of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Complainant, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its registered trademark. The Respondent has not provided any evidence that it has been commonly known by, or has made a bona fide use of, the disputed domain name, or that it has, for any other reason, rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The evidence provided by the Complainant shows that the disputed domain name was used to resolve to a website containing a number of links, which appear to be links both to the Complainant’s businesses and to other businesses in the same or related fields. The website also states that the disputed domain name is for sale. According to the present record, therefore, the disputed domain name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The disputed domain name was registered many years after the Complainant first registered its CREDIT AGRICOLE trademark. The evidence on the record provided by the Complainant with respect to the use of its CREDIT AGRICOLE trademark, combined with the absence of any evidence provided by the Respondent to the contrary, is sufficient to satisfy the Panel that, at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademark and knew that it had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the evidence on the record provided by the Complainant with respect to the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name indicates that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website by creating confusion in the minds of the public as to an association between the website and the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

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 <credit-agricole.nu> be transferred to the Complainant.

Andrew F. Christie
Sole Panelist
Date: November 19, 2019

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/