{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-007857",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "CA-MARTINIQUE.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "CREDIT AGRICOLE S.a. (CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A.)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Fabio Jones"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant in this proceeding is Credit Agricole S.A. and the submitted evidence in the case before the Panel demonstrates that the Complainant is the owner of the following registered trademarks:\r\n\r\n- French trademark CA with registration number 1381908 and registration date November 28, 1986;\r\n- French trademark CA with registration number 3454608 and registration date October 5, 2006;\r\n- International trademark CA with registration number 933604 and registration date March 23, 2007;\r\n- European trademark CA with registration number 12289071 and registration date November 7, 2013; and\r\n- French trademark CA with registration number 4189154 and registration date June 15, 2015.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent in this proceeding is Fabio Jones. On December 5, 2019 the Respondent registered the disputed domain name <ca-martinique.eu>.\r\n\r\nThe Czech Arbitration Court (“CAC”) acknowledged receipt of the Complainant’s Complaint which was filed electronically on December 12 and in hard copy on December 16, 2019. The formal date of the commencement of the ADR proceeding was December 17, 2019. The deadline for the Respondent to submit a Response was February 17, 2020. On March 4, 2020, the Respondent submitted a late Response. The Panel has considered the Respondent’s late Response.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "There are no other legal proceedings of which the Panel is aware that are pending or decided and that relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The Complainant must, in accordance with Article 21.1 of Commission regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 and Paragraph B 11 (d)(1) of the ADR Rules, demonstrate that the domain name <ca-martinique.eu> is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right (of the Complainant) is recognized or established by the national law of a member state and\/or Community law and either (a) the disputed domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or (b) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nIdentical or confusingly similar\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is, according to the submitted evidence, the owner of the trademark CA. The disputed domain name <ca-martinique.eu> contains the Complainant’s registered trademark CA in its entirety with the addition of a hyphen and the geographic location “Martinique”. The mere addition of a hyphen does little, if anything, to eliminate the confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the ability for generic words and geographic locations, such as “Martinique”, to distinguish the disputed domain name from the trademark of the Complainant is limited. In the present case, the Complainant’s trademark is readily recognizable in the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nHaving the above in mind, it is the opinion of the Panel that the disputed domain name <ca-martinique.eu> is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant, which is recognized within the meaning of Paragraph B 11(d)(1)(i) of the ADR Rules.\r\n\r\nRights or legitimate interest\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has not licensed or otherwise consented to the Respondent’s use of the trademark in connection with the disputed domain name <ca-martinique.eu>, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Furthermore, the Respondent has not submitted any evidence indicating that it is the owner of any trademark rights or that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.  \r\n\r\nAlthough the Respondent has argued that the disputed domain name was registered in order to sell cannabidiol related products, the Respondent has not submitted any convincing evidence in the case demonstrating that the Respondent has made preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to the dispute. On the contrary, the evidence submitted by the Complainant demonstrates that the Respondent redirected the disputed domain name <ca-martinique.eu> to the Complainant’s website “www.ca-martinique.fr” on December 11, 2019, which is only six days after the disputed domain name was registered. The fact that the Respondent, shortly after registering the disputed domain name, redirected it to the Complainant’s website, indicates that the Respondent has not been making a legitimate and non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent to mislead consumers or harm the reputation of a name in which a right is recognized or established by national law and\/or European Union law. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Thus, there is no evidence in the case that successfully refutes the Complainant’s submissions, and the Panel concludes, in the circumstances of this case and on the balance of probabilities, that the Complainant has also satisfied the requirement under B11(d)(1)(ii) of the ADR Rules. \r\n\r\nRegistered or used in bad faith\r\n\r\nAs the Panel has found that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for the reasons explained above, no further discussion regarding bad faith registration or use is necessary. Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness, the Panel will also address this third element. Article 21 (1)(b) of COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 874\/2004 requires that the Complainant show that the disputed domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. The aforementioned regulation request only one of the requirements to be fulfilled. \r\n\r\nThe issue of whether the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant and its CA trademark when registering and using the disputed domain name is relevant to the finding of bad faith. The Respondent claims that it had no knowledge of the Complainant’s CA trademark until being notified of this ADR proceeding. However, given that the Complainant has been using the CA trademark for many years and the fact that that the Respondent, shortly after having registered the disputed domain name <ca-martinique.eu>, redirected it to the Complainant’s official website “www.ca-martinique.fr” indicates that the Respondent’s use was made with the Complainant’s business and CA trademark in mind. The Panel finds this enough to declare that that the disputed domain name was intentionally used to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark, for either direct or indirect commercial gain of the Respondent. \r\n\r\nConsequently, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has succeeded in proving that the disputed domain name was used in bad faith for the purposes of Paragraph B11(d)(1)(iii) of the Rules.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <CA-MARTINIQUE.EU> be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-03-07 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: CA-MARTINIQUE.EU\r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant: France, country of the Respondent: Romania\r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: December 5, 2019\r\n\r\nIV.    Rights relied on by the Complainant (Art. 21 (1) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004) on which the Panel based its decision:\r\n        1.   Combined trademark registered in France, reg. No. 1381908, for the term CA, registered on November 28, 1986 in respect of goods and services in classes 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41.\r\n        2.   Combined trademark registered in France, reg. No. 3454608, for the term CA, registered on October 5, 2006 in respect of goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38 and 42.\r\n        3.   Combined International, reg. No. 933604, for the term CA, registered on March 23, 2007 in respect of goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38 and 42.\r\n        4.  Figurative EUTM, reg. No. 12289071, for the term CA, registered on November 7, 2013 in respect of goods and services in classes [9, 16, 35, 36, 38 and 42.\r\n        5.   Combined trademark registered in France, reg. No. 4189154, for the term CA, registered on June 15, 2015 in respect of goods and services in class 36.\r\n\r\nV.    Response submitted: Yes\r\n\r\nVI.   Domain name is identical\/confusingly similar to the protected rights of the Complainant\r\n\r\nVII.  Rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent (Art. 21 (2) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):\r\n        1. No\r\n        2. Why:The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. The Respondent has failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.  \r\n\r\nVIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (Art. 21 (3) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):\r\n        1. Yes\r\n        2. Why: The disputed domain name was intentionally used to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark, for either direct or indirect commercial gain of the Respondent.\r\n\r\nIX.   Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: The Respondent redirected the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s website shortly after the disputed domain name was registered.\r\n\r\nX.    Dispute Result: Transfer of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nXI.   Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant: None\r\n\r\nXII.  Is Complainant eligible? Yes",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}