Westmore · UDRP DecisionCic-web.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <cic-web.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CIC trademarks because it reproduced CIC in full and added the term “web,” which referred to the Complainant’s online banking goods and services. The Panel also found no rights or legitimate interests and concluded that the domain was registered and used in bad faith, relying on the reputation of the CIC marks and the domain’s use for a French-language parking page containing pay-per-click links in the financial field.
The timeline behind cic-web.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
The case illustrates a straightforward trademark-plus-descriptive-term dispute in which the added term increased rather than reduced the domain’s association with the trademark owner. The result also turned on the alignment between the domain’s composition, the Complainant’s online banking activities, and the French-language financial pay-per-click content displayed at the domain.
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. Domains By Proxy, LLC DomainsByProxy.com / CIC BANQUE Case No. D2021-2673 1. The Parties The Complainant is Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A., France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France. The Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC DomainsByProxy.com, United States of America / CIC BANQUE, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <cic-web.com> is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 16, 2021. On August 16, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 17, 2021, 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 22, 2021 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 August 26, 2021. 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 August 26, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 15, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 25, 2021. The Center appointed Christophe Caron as the sole panelist in this matter on October 13, 2021. 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, Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A., in abbreviated form CIC, is an important French deposit bank. The Complainant owns several trademarks consisting in the sign CIC and notably: - C.I.C. French trademark No. 1358524, registered on June 10, 1986; - CIC European Union Trade Mark No. 005891411, registered on March 5, 2008; - CIC European Union Trade Mark No. 011355328, registered on March 26, 2013. In addition, the Complainant operates among domain names <cic.fr> and <cic.eu>. The disputed domain name <cic-web.com> was registered on June 3, 2020. The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with pay-per-click links in relation to financial services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant makes the following contentions. Identical or Confusingly Similar First, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain name <cic-web.com> is highly similar to the trademark CIC. The trademark CIC is identically reproduced in the disputed domain name. The Complainant adds that the associated word “web” could refer to the activity of the Complainant on the Internet network (“web”). According to the Complainant, the company is well known for offering online banking services to its clients since numerous years. It is therefore considered as one of the leading bank online in Europe and abroad. Such word would only strengthen the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the trademark CIC as the word “web” can be recognized by the Complainant’s customers as an identification for one of the Complainant’s official website dedicated to its online banking goods and services. The Complainant concludes that the disputed domain name <cic-web.com> should be considered highly similar to the trademarks CIC in which the Complainant has rights. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant considers that the Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name <cic-web.com>. The Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated or licensed with the Complainant in any way. The Complainant has not given to the Respondent or to anyone else the permission to use its trademarks in any manner, including in domain names. In addition, the Complainant claims that the Respondent is not currently and has never been known under the wording “CIC WEB” or “CIC”, so that it does not justify any fair use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant adds the disputed domain name resolves to a parking website with several hyperlinks in French in the financial field. According to the Complainant, this “use” of a domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4(c)(iii). Considering these elements, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has no rights and no legitimate interests in the disputed domain name <cic-web.com>. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Complainant states that in similar cases where the prior trademark was well-known, UDRP panels have decided that the notoriety of a Complainant's trademark “creates a prima facie presumption that the Respondent registered the domain name for the purpose of selling it to Complainant or to one of its competitors, or that it was indented to be used in some way to attract for commercial gain users to the website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark". Thus, the Complainant claims that the Respondent could not have ignored the reputation of the trademarks CIC when registering the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking webpage with pay-per-click links in French. Thus, it concludes that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to a webpage on which several hyperlinks in French are displayed, in the financial field, redirecting the online users to third-party websites, notably some of the Complainant’s competitors. The Complainant concludes that the Respondent is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. On the contrary, many of these surrounding circumstances are disturbing CIC’s online presence. Thus, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain name <cic-web> is registered and used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied, namely: (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 disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to trademarks registered by the Complainant. The Complainant is the owner of French and European Union trademarks CIC. The trademark CIC is entirely reproduced in the disputed domain name. The addition of “.com” in the disputed domain name is not relevant to avoid the confusing similarity under the first element. This is also the case for the term “web” which corresponds to a very common word in the Complainant’s activities. In this Panel’s opinion, the addition of the term “web” directly refers to the online banking goods and services of the Complainant. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademarks CIC in which the Complainant has rights. Thus, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. This Panel is satisfied that the Respondent does not appear to have been commonly known by the disputed domain name, he is not a licensee or an agent of the Complainant, nor in any way is authorized to use the Complainant’s trademarks. Furthermore, the Respondent cannot claim to have been using the term “CIC”, which has no meaning, without being aware of the Complainant’s rights. Hence, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is also satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Regarding the reputation of the CIC trademarks, the Respondent could not have ignored them at the time of the registration. The Panel therefore considers that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking webpage with pay-per-click links in French. Thus, the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to a webpage on which several hyperlinks in French are displayed, in the financial field. For all these reasons, it appears to this Panel that the disputed domain name <cic-web.com> has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is made out. 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 <cic-web.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Christophe Caron Sole Panelist Date: October 26, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around cic-web.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.