Crédit Agricole S.A. v Marcus Ingello

WIPO Case No. DME2022-0007

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Crédit Agricole S.A. v. Marcus Ingello

Case No. DME2022-0007

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Crédit Agricole S.A., France, represented by Nameshield, France.

The Respondent is Marcus Ingello1, France.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <creditagricole.me> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 25, 2022. On April 25, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 26, 2022, 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 May 1, 2022 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 May 2, 2022.

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 May 2, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 22, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 23, 2022.

1 The Complaint was originally filed against “See PrivacyGuardian.org”. The identity of the Respondent was subsequently disclosed by

the Registrar in response to the Center’s request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. The
amendment to the Complaint lists the person disclosed by the Registrar as the sole Respondent.

page 2

The Center appointed Louis-Bernard Buchman as the sole panelist in this matter on May 26, 2022. 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, a French corporation, is one of the European Union’s leading banks, employing 147,000 persons worldwide and serving 51 million retail customers in France alone.

The Complainant owns a large portfolio of registered trademarks combining the terms “credit” and “agricole”, including, inter alia, European Union Trade Mark No. 005505995 for CA CRÉDIT AGRICOLE, registered on December 20, 2007 and International trademark registration No. 1064647 for CREDIT AGRICOLE,

registered on January 4, 2011 (together referred to hereinafter as: the “Mark”).

The Complainant also owns many domain names combining the elements “credit” and “agricole”, such as

<credit-agricole.com>, registered on December 31, 1999.

The disputed domain name was registered on April 23, 2022.

At the time of the Decision, the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

(i) The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name reproduces the Mark, in which the Complainant
has rights, and is identical to the Mark insofar as the disputed domain name contains the

CREDIT AGRICOLE trademark in their entirety.

(ii) The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the
disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Complainant contends that it never authorized the Respondent to

use the Mark in any manner and that the Respondent has never had any affiliation with the Complainant.

(iii) The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in
bad faith. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent had knowledge of the Mark when registering the

disputed domain name.

(iv) The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1. Procedural Aspects - Failure to Respond

Under the Rules, paragraphs 5(f) and 14(a), the effect of a failure to submit a response by the Respondent is
that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall proceed to a decision on the basis of the
Complaint.

page 3

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, it is the Complainant’s burden to establish that all three of the required criteria for a transfer of the disputed domain name have been met, even in the absence of a response.

Under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel is empowered to draw such inferences from the
Respondent’s failure to file a response as it considers appropriate under the circumstances.

In this case, the Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to rebut any of the reasonable factual assertions that are made and supported by evidence submitted by the Complainant.

In particular, by failing to respond, the Respondent has failed to offer the Panel any of the types of evidence set forth in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise, from which the Panel might conclude that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, such as making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

Moreover, as discussed below, the Respondent has failed to provide any exculpatory information or reasoning that might have led the Panel to question the Complainant’s arguments that the Respondent has acted in bad faith.

6.2. Requirements of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

In comparing the Mark with the disputed domain name, it is evident that the latter consists of the Mark, and the country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.me”.

It is well established that a TLD is generally disregarded in the assessment of a domain name for the
purpose of determining identity or confusing similarity. See the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on

Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11.1.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Mark, which is incorporated in its entirety.

Thus, the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Although a complainant bears the ultimate burden of establishing all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, previous UDRP panels have recognized that with regard to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, this could result in the often impossible task of proving a negative proposition, requiring information that is primarily, if

not exclusively, within the knowledge of a respondent.

Thus, the consensus view of previous UDRP panels is that paragraph 4(c) of the Policy shifts the burden of production of evidence to the respondent to come forward with evidence of rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, once the complainant has made a prima facie case showing, as the Panel finds the

Complainant has made out in this case, based on the facts and arguments set out above. See Document
Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0270; and WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

As previously noted, the Respondent offered no reason for selecting the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or uses (or has made bona fide preparations to use) the disputed domain name in a business or otherwise.

The disputed domain name resolves to a page mentioning “Account suspended”.

No information is provided on what rights or legitimate interests the Respondent may have in the disputed domain name.

page 4

In addition, the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s Mark in its entirety, which carries a risk of implied affiliation. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

To counter any notion that the Respondent has such rights or legitimate interests, the Complainant has argued that the Respondent (i) has no affiliation with the Complainant and (ii) received no authorization from the Complainant to register or use the disputed domain name, which the Respondent failed to deny.

In the circumstances, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has established the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy with respect to the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

As noted above, the Respondent has failed to provide any exculpatory information or persuasive reasoning that might have led the Panel to question the Complainant’s arguments that the Respondent acted in bad faith by creating confusion to the detriment of the Complainant in registering the disputed domain name.

First, the registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark by an entity that has no relationship to that mark may be, depending on the circumstances, evidence of opportunistic bad faith. See Ebay Inc. v. Wangming, WIPO Case No. D2006-1107; Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co., WIPO Case No. D2000-0163.

Second, it is well established that the mere passive holding of a domain name may in appropriate
circumstances be evidence not only of bad faith registration, but also of bad faith use. See Telstra
Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial
Corporation, WIPO Case No. D2000-1232; Mary-Lynn Mondich and American Vintage Wine Biscuits, Inc. v.
Shane Brown, doing business as Big Daddy’s Antiques., WIPO Case No. D2000-0004; and Alitalia – Linee
Aeree Italiane S.p.A v. Colour Digital, WIPO Case No. D2000-1260.

Third, it is established in prior UDRP decisions that where the respondent knew or should have known of a trademark prior to registering the domain name, such conduct may be, in certain circumstances, sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Weetabix Limited v. Mr. J. Clarke, WIPO Case No.

D2001-0775.

In this case, considering the fact that the Mark is well known, as several prior UDRP panels have confirmed,
the Panel finds it impossible to believe that the Respondent, whose address is located in France, chose to
register the disputed domain name randomly with no knowledge of the Mark. See Barney’s Inc. v. BNY
Bulletin Board, WIPO Case No. D2000-0059; Kate Spade, LLC v. Darmstadter Designs, WIPO Case No.
D2001-1384, citing Cellular One Group v. Paul Brien, WIPO Case No. D2000-0028; and SembCorp

Industries Limited v. Hu Huan Xin, WIPO Case No. D2001-1092.

Prior UDRP panels have held that bad faith use of a domain name by a respondent may also result from the
fact its good faith use is in no way plausible, considering the specificity of the activity (see Audi AG v. Hans
Wolf, WIPO Case No. D2001-0148). The Panel finds it is indeed not possible to imagine any plausible future
active use of the disputed domain name that would not be illegitimate, considering the specificity of the

Complainant’s banking and insurance activities.

Finally, prior UDRP panels have held that in certain circumstances, registrants of domain names have an
affirmative duty to abstain from registering and using a domain name which is either identical or confusingly
similar to a prior trademark held by others and that contravening that duty may constitute bad faith. See
Policy, paragraph 2(b); Nike, Inc. v. B. B. de Boer, WIPO Case No. D2000-1397; Nuplex Industries Limited
v. Nuplex, WIPO Case No. D2007-0078; Mobile Communication Service Inc. v. WebReg, RN, WIPO Case
No. D2005-1304; BOUYGUES v. Chengzhang, Lu Ciagao, WIPO Case No. D2007-1325; Media General
Communications, Inc. v. Rarenames, WebReg, WIPO Case No. D2006-0964; and mVisible Technologies,
Inc. v. Navigation Catalyst Systems, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2007-1141.

page 5

The Panel concludes in the light of all these circumstances that the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitute bad faith, and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy are also satisfied in this case.

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.me>, be transferred to the Complainant.

/Louis-Bernard Buchman/
Louis-Bernard Buchman
Sole Panelist
Date: June 9, 2022