Agent-sofinco.site, Client-sofinco.site

The timeline behind agent-sofinco.site

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

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION CA CONSUMER FINANCE, Société Anonyme v. Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) / Jordan Liengme Case No. D2022-2813 1. The Parties The Complainant is CA CONSUMER FINANCE, Société Anonyme, France, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden. The Respondent is Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org), United States of America / Jordan Liengme, France. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <agent-sofinco.site> and <client-sofinco.site> (the “Domain Names”) are registered with Beget LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint in English was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 1, 2022. On August 1, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On August 3, 2022, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 8, 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 August 5, 2022. On August 4, 2022, the Center sent an email communication to the Parties in both English and Russian regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding on August 5, 2022. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding. page 2 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 in both English and Russian, and the proceedings commenced on August 16, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 5, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 9, 2022. The Center appointed Piotr Nowaczyk as the sole panelist in this matter on September 16, 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 part of the international banking group Credit Agricole. The Complainant was established in 2010 in result of the merger of Sofinco and Finaref. Currently, the Complainant provides consumer credit services mainly through its Sofinco brand. The Complainant is the owner of numerous SOFINCO trademark registrations, including: - the French Trademark Registration SOFINCO No. 1519214 registered on March 22, 1988; - the European Union Trade Mark Registration SOFINCO No. 004519732 registered on July 3, 2007; - the International Trademark Registration SOFINCO No. 730493 registered on November 24, 1999. The Complainant is also the owner of numerous domain names which incorporate its SOFINCO trademark. The Complainant’s primary domain name is <sofinco.fr>. The Domain Names were registered on November 22, 2021. At the time the Complaint was filed and as of the date of this Decision, the Domain Names have resolved to inactive websites. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant requests that the Domain Names be transferred to the Complainant. According to the Complainant, each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in the present case. First, the Complainant submits that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the SOFINCO trademark in which the Complainant has rights. Second, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has neither rights nor legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Third, the Complainant submits that the Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy places a burden on the Complainant to prove the presence of three separate elements, which can be summarized as follows: (i) the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names; and (iii) the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. The requested remedy may only be granted if the above criteria are met. At the outset, the Panel notes that the applicable standard of proof in UDRP cases is the “balance of probabilities” or “preponderance of the evidence”. See section 4.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”). A. Language of the Proceeding The language of the Registration Agreement for the Domain Names is Russian. Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that “unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding”. The Panel may also order that any documents submitted in a language other than that of the proceeding be translated. As noted by previous UDRP panels, paragraph 11 of the Rules must be applied in accordance with the overriding requirements of paragraphs 10(b) and 10(c) of the Rules that the parties are treated equally, that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case, and that the proceeding takes place with due expedition (see, e.g., General Electric Company v. Edison Electric Corp. a/k/a Edison Electric Corp. General Energy, Edison GE, Edison-GE and EEEGE.COM, WIPO Case No. D2006-0334 ). The Complainant has submitted a request that the language of the proceeding be English. The Complainant alleges that it is unable to communicate in Russian. The translation of the Complaint would unfairly disadvantage and burden the Complainant and delay the proceedings and adjudication of this matter. Moreover, the Complainant notes that the term “sofinco” – the dominant portion of the Domain Names – does not carry any specific meaning in the Russian language. The Panel finds that substantial additional expense and delay would likely be incurred if the Complaint had to be translated into Russian. Moreover, the Panel notes that the Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding, even though it was notified in English and Russian regarding the language of the proceeding. Thus, taking these circumstances into account, the Panel finds that it is appropriate to exercise its discretion and allow the proceeding to be conducted in English. page 4 B. Identical or Confusingly Similar The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant holds valid SOFINCO trademark registrations which precede the registration of the Domain Names. The Domain Names incorporate this trademark in its entirety. As numerous UDRP panels have held, incorporating a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark (see PepsiCo, Inc. v. PEPSI, SRL (a/k/a P.E.P.S.I.) and EMS Computer Industry (a/k/a EMS), WIPO Case No. D2003-0696 ). The addition of the terms “agent-” and “client-“ in the Domain Names does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Names and the Complainant’s SOFINCO trademark. UDRP panels have consistently held that where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms, whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise, would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. See section 1.8, WIPO Overview 3.0 . The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.site” in the Domain Names is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. See section 1.11.1, WIPO Overview 3.0 . Given the above, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Thus, the Complainant has proved the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests The second requirement the Complainant must prove is that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. The respondent may establish a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name by demonstrating in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy any of the following: (i) that it has used or made 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 prior to the dispute; or (ii) that it is commonly known by the domain name, even if it has not acquired any trademark rights; or (iii) that it intends to make a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark. Although given the opportunity, the Respondent has not submitted any evidence indicating that any of the circumstances foreseen in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy are present in this case. On the contrary, it results from the evidence in the record that the Complainant’s SOFINCO trademark registrations predate the Respondent’s registrations of the Domain Names. There is no evidence in the case file that the Complainant has licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the SOFINCO trademark or to register the Domain Names incorporating this trademark. There is also no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Names. Moreover, it results from the evidence in the record that the Respondent does not make use of the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, as well as it does not make a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Names without intent for commercial gain. In fact, it does not result from the evidence in the record that Domain Names have been used in any active way to date. page 5 Given the above, the Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances, which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names. Thus, there is no evidence in the case file that refutes the Complainant’s prima facie case. The Panel concludes that the Complainant has also proved the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The third requirement the Complainant must prove is that the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. Bad faith under the UDRP is broadly understood to occur where a respondent takes unfair advantage of or otherwise abuses a complainant’s mark. See section 3.1, WIPO Overview 3.0 . Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, evidence of bad faith registration and use includes without limitation: (i) circumstances indicating the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the owner of a trademark or to a competitor of the trademark owner, for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) circumstances indicating that the domain name were registered in order to prevent the owner of a trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided it is a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) circumstances indicating that the domain name has intentionally been used in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on a website or location. As indicated above, the Complainant’s rights in the SOFINCO trademark predate the registration of the Domain Names. This Panel finds that the Respondent was or should have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the Domain Names. It has been proven to the Panel’s satisfaction that the Complainant’s SOFINCO trademark is well known and unique to the Complainant. Thus, the Respondent could not likely reasonably ignore the reputation of products and services under this trademark. In sum, the Respondent in all likelihood registered the Domain Names with the expectation of taking advantage of the reputation of the Complainant’s SOFINCO trademark. Moreover, it does not result from the evidence in the record that Domain Names have been used in any active way to date. As indicated above, at the time of submitting the Complaint, the Domain Names resolved to inactive websites. As of the date of this Decision, the Domain Names also resolve to inactive websites. In the overall circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s passive holding of the Domain Names do not prevent a finding of bad faith. As numerous UDRP panels have held, passive holding, under the totality of circumstances of the case, may not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. Here, given the Respondent’s use of a privacy service to mask its details, the Respondent’s failure to participate in this proceeding, and the implausible good faith use to which the Domain Names could be put, the Panel agrees with the above. For the reasons discussed above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proved the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. page 6 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 Names <agent-sofinco.site> and <client-sofinco.site> be transferred to the Complainant. /Piotr Nowaczyk/ Piotr Nowaczyk Sole Panelist Date: September 30, 2022

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