Cic-marseille.com

The timeline behind cic-marseille.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. Thomas McCoy Case No. D2014-1738 1. The Parties Complainant is Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A. of Paris, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France. Respondent is Thomas McCoy of Ray City, Georgia, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <cic-marseille.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the &ldquo;Registrar&rdquo;). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the &ldquo;Center&rdquo;) on October 6, 2014. On October 7, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 14, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 &ldquo;Policy&rdquo; or &ldquo;UDRP&rdquo;), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the &ldquo;Rules&rdquo;), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the &ldquo;Supplemental Rules&rdquo;). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 16, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was November 5, 2014. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent&rsquo;s default on November 7, 2014. The Center appointed David Perkins as the sole panelist in this matter on November 13, 2014. 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 4. A Complainant 4. A.1 Complainant is a financial services group headquartered in France. It was founded in 1859. With its parent company, Credit Mutuel, it is the fourth largest bank in France. Complainant carries on the businesses of retail banking, corporate banking, private banking, capital development and insurance services. As at December, 2013 Complainant was reported as having 2,067 branches - including branches in Marseille - with over 24,000 employees, serving 3.6 million customers and generating revenue of Euros 8.2 billion. It had 35 foreign representative offices and 25 foreign private banking offices. Complainant's foreign branches include London, New York and Singapore. 4. A.2 Complainant is the registered proprietor of the following registered trade marks. Country Registration No Mark Class(es) of goods and services Dates of Application andRegistration France 1,358,524 CIC 35 & 36 June 10, 1986 CTM (Community Trade Mark) 005891411 CIC 9;16;35; &36 May 10,2007 International* 581464 UNION EUROPEENNE DE CIC 35 & 36 January 23,1992 International* 585099 CIC BANQUES 35 & 36 October 4,1992 The (asterisked) International registrations designated Austria; Benelux; Switzerland; China; Germany; Spain; Italy; Monaco; and Portugal. 4. A.3 Additionally, Complainant is the registrant of the following domain names. Domain Name Date of Creation cic.fr May 28,1999 cic.eu March 6, 2006 cic.mobi September 26, 2006 cic-paiement.com June 28, 2009 cic-banques.mobi September 29, 2006 4. B Respondent 4. B.1 In the absence of a Response, all that is known of the Respondent is what is contained in the Complaint and its annexes. 4. B.2 Respondent registered the disputed domain name on November 28, 2013. 4. B.3 The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page which has links to commercial services which, Complainant says, compete with those which it offers. For example, Pret-Dunion; Xforex; Credit-Creditneto; and Creditprox. 5. Parties' Contentions 5. A. Complainant. Identical or Confusingly Similar 5. A.1 Complainant asserts rights in the registered trade mark CIC, which is incorporated entirely in the disputed domain name. Complainant further asserts that the CIC trade mark is a well known mark in the sense of Art.6bis Paris Convention, referring to findings in earlier cases decided under the Policy, namely Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A., Banque Fédérative du Credit Mutuel v. Headwaters MB , WIPO Case No. D2008-1892 <ciccms.com> and Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. Jeongyong Cho, WIPO Case No.D2013-1263 <cicstart.com>. 5. A.2 Complainant says that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CIC mark, since, as stated, it incorporates that mark in its entirety with the addition of the geographic term "Marseille", a city where Complainant has branches. In that respect, Complainant cites decisions under the Policy where the addition of a geographic term to a well known trade mark has been held to amount to confusingly similarity. For example, PepsiCo, Inc. v OWO , WIPO Case No. D2004-0865 <pepsico-afghanistan.com> and Atmel Corporation v Entredomains, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0775 <atmelgrenoble.com>. Rights or Legitimate Interests 5. A.3 Complainant's case is that Respondent cannot bring himself within any of the circumstances identified in paragraph 4.c of the Policy as demonstrating rights to and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. First, Respondent is neither licensed nor otherwise authorised to use the CIC trade mark. Second, Respondent is not related in any way to Complainant and his use of the disputed domain name to resolve to the parking page with links to businesses competing with those of Complainant is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of that domain name. In that respect, Complainant again refers to the decision in Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v Jeongyong Cho, WIPO Case No. D2013-1263 <cicstart.com>. Registered and Used in Bad Faith 5. A.4 As to bad faith registration, Complainant's case is that, by reason of the well known status of the CIC trade mark in the field of banking and financial services, it is inconceivable that Respondent was unaware of that mark when registering the disputed domain name. In that respect, Complainant again cites the decision in the <cicstart.com> case. 5. A.5 As to bad faith use, Complainant relies upon the fact that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with links to competitor businesses - as noted in paragraph 4.B.3 above - and thereby generates pay-per-click revenue for Respondent. This, Complainant says, falls within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Complainant supports that assertion by reference to, inter alia , two cases under the Policy. They are Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association & others v Private Whois Service & others, WIPO Case No. D2010-1699 <bluecrossblueshieldmn.com> and <bluecrossblueshieldofgeorgia.com> and S.N.C. Jesta Fontainebleau v Po Ser, WIPO Case No. D2009-1394 <palaisstephany.com>. 5. B Respondent As noted above, no Response has been filed. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 The Policy paragraph 4(a) provides that Complainant must prove each of the following in order to succeed in an administrative proceeding (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 6.2 The Policy paragraph 4(c) sets out circumstances which, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved shall demonstrate Respondent's rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 6.3 The Policy paragraph 4(b) sets out circumstances which, again in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. 6.4 As stated, the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) and 4(c) of the Policy are not exclusionary. They are without limitation. That is, the Policy expressly recognizes that other circumstances can be evidence relevant the requirements of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy. Identical or Confusingly Similar 6.5 Having regard to the registrations listed in paragraph 4.A.2 above, clearly Complainant has rights in the CIC trade mark. 6.6 As noted above, the disputed domain name incorporates that mark in its entirety. Addition of the geographic term "Marseille" does not avoid confusing similarity. The decisions cited under the Policy are in point. 6.7 Consequently, the Complaint meets the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Rights or Legitimate Interests 6.8 In the absence of a Response, there is nothing to indicate that Respondent could demonstrate any of the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise establish rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Indeed, the use made of the disputed domain name - as to which, see paragraph 4.(b)(3) above - is neither a bona fide nor a fair noncommercial use of that domain name. Complainant's case is well made out and, accordingly, the Complaint meets the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Registered and Used Used in Bad Faith 6.9 Again, Complainant's case summarised in paragraphs 5.A.4 and 5.A.5 is well made out and does not require repetition here. Further, the cases cited in paragraph 5.A.5 are directly in point. Accordingly, the Complaint satisfies paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision For all 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 <cic-marseille.com> be transferred to Complainant. David Perkins Sole Panelist Date: November 26, 2014

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.