Crédit Foncier de France v Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot / Joe

WIPO Case No. D2022-1165

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Crédit Foncier de France v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot / Joe
Walters

Case No. D2022-1165

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Crédit Foncier de France, France, represented by DBK – Société d’avocats, France.

The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States of America (“United States”) / Joe

Walters, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <crditfoncier.com> (“Domain Name”) is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 4, 2022. On amended Complaint on April 11, 2022.

April 4, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the Domain Name. On April 6, 2022, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its
verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from
the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication
to the Complainant on April 11, 2022, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the
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 April 13, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 3, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 4, 2022.

page 2

The Center appointed Nicholas Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on May 17, 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 is a French bank, specializing in real estate financing and related services. It was founded in 1853 and has provided banking services since that time both from physical offices and, since 1999, websites located at the domain names <creditfoncier.fr> and <creditfoncier.org>.

The Complainant is the owner of trade mark registrations in France for marks consisting of the words “credit foncier” in stylized form along with an additional logo (“CREDIT FONCIER Mark”) including French registration No. 3194024 registered on November 12, 2002 for services in classes 35, 36, 42 and 45.

The Domain Name was registered on March 16, 2022. The Domain Name does not, and there is no evidence that it ever has, resolved to an active webpage.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant makes the following contentions:

1. that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CREDIT FONCIER Mark;

2. that the Respondent has no rights nor legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

3. that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Complainant is the owner of the CREDIT FONCIER Mark, being the owner of trade marks registered in France for the CREDIT FONCIER Mark. The Domain Name consists of a minor misspelling of the CREDIT FONCIER Mark, removing the first “e” and adding the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”).

There are no rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. The never been used in any active way.

Complainant has not granted any license or authorization for the Respondent to use the CREDIT FONCIER
Mark and the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. The Respondent does not use the
The Respondent has registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith. Given the fame of the CREDIT
FONCIER Mark and the nature of the Domain Name, being a minor misspelling (also known as
typosquatting) of the CREDIT FONCIER Mark, there are no plausible circumstances under which the
Respondent could legitimately use the Domain Name other than in bad faith. In such circumstances, the

Respondent’s passive holding of the Domain Name amounts to use of the Domain Name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights and the Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade or service mark.

The Complainant is the owner of the CREDIT FONCIER Mark, having registrations for the CREDIT
FONCIER Mark as a trade mark in France.

Disregarding the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) as a necessary technical requirement of the Domain Name, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CREDIT FONCIER Mark since it wholly incorporates the portion of the CREDIT FONCIER Mark reproducible in a domain name (the stylization and device element not being reproducible due to the nature of the domain name system), other than deleting a “e” which creates a minor distinction that would be easy for an Internet user to overlook. Consequently, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

To succeed on this element, a complainant may make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If such a prima facie case is made out, the respondent then has the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy enumerates several ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name:

“Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved
based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the
domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii):

(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name,

even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) you are making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial
gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”

The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way. It has not been authorized by the Complainant to register or use the Domain Name or to seek the registration of any domain name incorporating the CREDIT FONCIER Mark or a mark similar to the CREDIT FONCIER Mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name or any similar name.

There is no evidence that the Respondent has used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial use. In fact there is no evidence of any demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name at all.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint and thus has failed to provide any evidence of rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Panel

finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name under
paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

page 4

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

For the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith:

1. circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name

primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registrations to the Complainant who is the owner of the trade mark or service mark or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name;
or

1. the Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trade mark or

service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the Respondent has
engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

1. 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 or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location.
The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its reputation in the CREDIT FONCIER Mark at the time the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The CREDIT FONCIER Mark has been used for over 160 years and has a considerable reputation in France. There is no obvious reason, nor has the Respondent offered an explanation, for the Respondent to register a
domain name that consists of a minor misspelling of the CREDIT FONCIER Mark unless there was an intention to create a likelihood of confusion between the Domain Name and the Complainant and the CREDIT FONCIER Mark. The registration of the Domain Name in awareness of the CREDIT FONCIER Mark and in the absence of rights or legitimate interests in this case amounts to registration in bad faith.
The Panel is prepared to infer, based on the conduct of the Respondent, including the passive holding of the Domain Name, the nature of the Domain Name itself, being a minor misspelling of a well-known mark, the failure by the Respondent to participate in this proceeding or otherwise provide any explanation of its conduct in registering a domain name that is confusingly similar to the CREDIT FONCIER Mark and the lack of any apparent legitimate reason for the registration and use of the Domain Name, that the Domain Name is most likely being held pending use in a bad faith manner that would take advantage of confusion between the Domain Name and the CREDIT FONCIER Mark. As such, the Panel finds that the passive holding of the Domain Name does not prevent a finding that the Domain Name is being used in bad faith.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
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 Domain Name <crditfoncier.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
/Nicholas Smith/ Nicholas Smith Sole Panelist Date: May 18, 2022