À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Caisse Régionale de Crédit Agricole Mutuel Centre Loire, Caisse de crédit agricole mutuel, Société coopérative v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 124742348, Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 124742348 / Magdalena Bempah

Case No. D2016-1750

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Caisse Régionale de Crédit Agricole Mutuel Centre Loire, Caisse de crédit agricole mutuel, Société cooperative of Bourges, France, represented by Carler Avocats, France.

The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 124742348 of Toronto, Canada / Magdalena Bempah of Audubon, Pennsylvania, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <centreloire-ca.com> is registered with Google Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 26, 2016. On August 26, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 27, 2016, 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 August 30, 2016 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 amended Complaint on September 3, 2016.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 September 6, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 26, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 27, 2016.

The Center appointed James Bridgeman as the sole panelist in this matter on October 3, 2016. 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.

On October 4, 2016 the Panel issued a Procedural Order requesting further information and clarification of the Complaint. A timely reply was received from the Complainant on October 10, 2016 and there was no response from the Respondent by the deadline on October 15, 2016 set by the Procedural Order.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is an international banking organization with its headquarters in France and is the owner of two French trademarks CREDIT AGRICOLE CENTRE LOIRE and CENTRE LOIRE registered and renewed under numbers 94 530 545 and 94 530 544 for services of class 36.

In the absence of any Response or other submission there is no information available about the Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint and the Registrar’s WhoIs.

The disputed domain name was created on August 10, 2016.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant relies on its rights in the above-mentioned registered trademarks and submits that it is well known in France and worldwide for bank services, and usually is designated with the acronym CA.

The Complainant submits that it owns the domain names <ca-centreloire.fr> and <ca-centreloire.com> and has provided bank services through its website at “www.ca-centreloire.fr” since 1999.

The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name <centreloire-ca.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks CREDIT AGRICOLE CENTRE LOIRE and CENTRE LOIRE as well as the Complainant’s domain name <ca-centreloire.fr>. The Complainant argues that the letters “CA” which are used as an abbreviation of the Complainant’s full name are combined with the element “centreloire” in the disputed domain name in order to capture, create and provoke confusion and divert consumers and users from the Complainant’s website.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and “has no link with the complainant or its subsidiary.”

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith in order to attract Internet users to the Respondent or online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant. The Complainant further submits that there is a high risk of fraudulent activities because the Complainant provides banking services.

In response to the Panel’s request for further information and clarification of the all too brief submissions in the Complaint, the Complainant clarified that a number of the Complainant’s subsidiaries, namely, Credit Agricole Centre Loire Amenagement Foncier, Credit Agricole Centre Loire Investissement, Credit Agricole Centre Loire Promotion, Credit Agricole Centre Loire Developpement, Credit Agricole Centre Loire Immobilier also use the domain name <ca-centreloire.fr> and so might be affected by any entity registering or using the confusingly similar disputed domain name.

Responding to the Procedural Order, the Complainant further submitted that bad faith registration and use is evidenced by the fact that the identity of the registrant on the publicly available WhoIs, is masked by a privacy shield; that there is no evidence that the Respondent has trade mark rights in the disputed domain name, or rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; that the disputed domain name <centreloire-ca.com> appears to be typosquatting by taking advantage of a visual similarity between the disputed domain name and the domain name <ca-centreloire.fr> which is used by the Complainant as the address of its official support website; that it is difficult to conceive of any legitimate use to which the Respondent could put the disputed domain name; that the Respondent has not responded to the contentions in the Complaint and has not provided the Panel with submissions regarding any rights or legitimate interests which it might have had in the disputed domain name; that by registering the Complainant’s legal name as the domains, the Respondent unmistakably gives and wants to give the impression that the Respondent’s services are authorized if not endorsed by the Complainant. In so doing, the Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s service mark. The Complainant also argued that it is a well-established principle that registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a well-known trademark as Credit Agricole Centre Loire by any entity that does not have a relationship with that trademark or its owner can amount to sufficient evidence of bad faith registration.

The Complainant submitted that these factors indicate that the Respondent has registered or has acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the owner of the service mark or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name.

In conclusion the Complainant submitted that for all the above reasons there is a risk that Internet users will fail to perceive that the services provided by the Respondent are not the legitimate services of the Complainant bank and so it is necessary to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant to avoid the risks to Internet users.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4 of the Policy requires the Complainant to establish that:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

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

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has provided evidence of its ownership of the French registered trademarks CREDIT AGRICOLE CENTRE LOIRE and CENTRE LOIRE. This Panel accepts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to both of the Complainant’s registered trademarks as the elements of the disputed domain name are a combination of the letters “ca” which are an acronym for the words Crédit Agricole together with the element “centreloire”. The disputed domain name has no distinguishing elements. Furthermore the elements of the disputed domain name are identical to those in the Complainant’s country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) name <ca-centreloire.fr>, albeit in reverse order and with a hyphen. The existence of the hyphen serves to contribute to the similarity as it separates out the “centreloire” and “ca” elements in each case.

This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks CREDIT AGRICOLE CENTRE LOIRE and CENTRE LOIRE in which the Complainant has rights and the Complainant is therefore entitled to succeed in the first element of the test in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Notwithstanding the brevity of the Complaint this Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name because the Complainant is the owner of the above-referenced trademarks and the Respondent has no links with either the Complainant or any of its subsidiaries that use the <ca-centreloire.fr> domain name.

In such circumstances the burden of proof shifts to the Respondent.

The Respondent has failed to file a Response or make any submissions and has therefore failed to discharge the burden of production. The Complainant therefore is entitled to succeed in the second element of the test in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

This Panel finds that on the balance of probabilities the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name is a unique combination of the words “centre loire” and the acronym for the Complainant’s full corporate name. In the absence of a Response or any submissions from the Respondent this Panel is of the view that on the balance of probabilities the registrant chose and registered the disputed domain name in order to take predatory advantage of the Complainant’s reputation and goodwill.

It is improbable that the registrant would not have become actually aware of the Complainant and its website at the time of registration as the Complainant owned and used the domain name <ca-centreloire.fr> at that time. Furthermore the elements of the disputed domain name are identical to those in the Complainant’s country code Top-Level Domain name <ca-centreloire.fr>, albeit in reverse order and the fact that the disputed domain name even includes a hyphen indicates both knowledge and intent on the part of the registrant to create an association between the Complainant’s domain name and principal website and the disputed domain name.

Furthermore this Panel accepts the Complainant’s submission that it is difficult to conceive of any legitimate use to which the Respondent could put the disputed domain name.

In the circumstances this Panel finds that the disputed domain name was 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 <centreloire-ca.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

James Bridgeman
Sole Panelist
Date: October 18, 2016

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