Mediation center administrative panel decision



Yüklə 35.87 Kb.
tarix09.03.2016
ölçüsü35.87 Kb.




ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER



ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Banco Bradesco S/A v. John Rapo / Perfect Privacy, LLC

Case No. D2015-1160

1. The Parties
The Complainant is Banco Bradesco S/A of Osasco, Sao Paulo, Brazil, represented by Pinheiro, Nunes, Arnaud & Scatamburlo S/C, Brazil.
The Respondent is John Rapo of Dover, Massachusetts, United States of America / Perfect Privacy, LLC of Jacksonville, Florida, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 6, 2015. On July 6, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 7, 2015, 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 July 9, 2015 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 July 10, 2015, indicating John Rapo as the Respondent and its contact information in the Complaint.
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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 15, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 4, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 5, 2015.

The Center appointed Beatrice Onica Jarka as the sole panelist in this matter on August 11, 2015.


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 Brazilian bank established in 1943, whose head office is in Osasco, Brazil. The Complainant operates over 25 million bank accounts for its customers as well as more than 45 million savings accounts, in addition to an extensive network of service points, branches and ATMs (“automatic teller machine”).
The Complainant has a trade mark for BRADESCO, filed on June 13, 1979, and registered on June 10, 1980, for “bank services”. The mark BRADESCO has been recognized by the Brazilian Patent and Trade Mark Office as a notorious mark, with the consequence that it enjoys enhanced protection in Brazil. The Complainant has 333 other trademarks including the term “bradesco” in Brazil in addition to many BRADESCO trade marks in different jurisdictions around the world comprising Argentina, Aruba, Barbados, Bolivia, Cayman Islands, Overseas Territory of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Curaçao, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Hong Kong, China, India, Indonesia, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Russian Federation, Singapore, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America and Uruguay.
The company Bradesco Seguros S.A. (in English “seguros” stands for “insurances”) is part of the Complainant’s Group. Bradesco Seguros S.A. has almost 47 million clients and it is the owner of the domain name .
The Complainant is also the owner of the domain names and , among other domain names containing the term “bradesco”.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the Registrar on December 7, 2011.

5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
- the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark BRADESCO, registered in Brazil under No. 007.170.424, in which the Complainant has prior and unencumbered rights, as the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark BRADESCO and is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
- the disputed domain name is composed by the Complainant’s trademark BRADESCO and the term “insurance”, making reference to a website that offers Bradesco’s insurances. This leads to the conclusion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, making it possible for customers to believe that the disputed domain name is the real and current Complainant’s domain name, which is not true.
- the Complainant offers bank services (including insurances) under the BRADESCO trademark, for people and business companies, which makes it clear that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
- the possibility of confusion is evident given that consumers will immediately identify the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent with the Complainant’s notorious trademark, believing that the registration identify the same company and that the products/services offered under the disputed domain name originate from the same source, which is not true given the undue registration made by the Respondent.
- BRADESCO is not a generic term, nor descriptive of the Complainant’s products, and it is not a dictionary word neither in Portuguese, English, French, Italian or any other language. BRADESCO is a coined word created by the joining of the first letters of the Complainant’s previous commercial name (Banco BRAsileiro de DESCOntos).
- as far as it is known, the Respondent’s activities do not relate to the products commercialized under the BRADESCO trademark and the Respondent has never been known to be related or associated to said mark.
- the element “bradesco” does not appear in the Respondent’s denomination, or any other identification.
- the Respondent seems to have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, since on the related webpage there are some links, some of which make reference to car insurance, that lead to webpages which contain many advertisements. There is no reference to the Respondent’s activities or services. If there is no reference to the Respondent’s activities or services, it is possible to ensure that the only plausible explanation for the Respondent’s selection of the disputed domain name is to exploit, in an unauthorized fashion, the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant, its name and trademarks.
- the bad faith of the Respondent can be deduced also by the fact that the Respondent has used the notorious trademark BRADESCO as the major component of the disputed domain name, in circumstances in which the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the mark.
- in previous decisions, UDRP panels have already determined many times that different respondents transfer their domain names compounded by the trademark BRADESCO to the Complainant (see for example Banco Bradesco S/A v. Javenaldo, WIPO Case No. D2013-1056).
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has extensively established that it has prior and unencumbered trademark rights in BRADESCO.
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BRADESCO trademark as the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark BRADESCO, registered in Brazil under No. 007.170.424, and is also confusingly similar to the domain names previously registered by the Complainant. The Complainant also asserts that the disputed domain name is composed of the Complainant’s trademark BRADESCO and the term “insurance”, making reference to a website that offers Bradesco’s insurances.
The Panel fully agrees with the Complainant’s submissions in respect of confusing similarity. As the Complainant further asserts in the Complaint, BRADESCO is a coined word created by the joining of the first letters of the Complainant’s previous commercial name (Banco BRAsileiro de DESCOntos). The added word “insurance” describes features or attributes of the Complainant’s services.
An Internet user would definitely be trapped by the distinctive BRADESCO component of the disputed domain name. Therefore the possibility of confusion is evident given that consumers will immediately identify the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s notorious trademark, believing that the registration identifies the same company and that the products/services offered under the disputed domain name originate from the same source.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BRADESCO mark and that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has alleged that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name.

According to the Complainant, the Respondent’s activities do not relate to the products commercialized under the BRADESCO trademark and the Respondent has never been known to be related or associated to said mark in the sense of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.


Moreover, the element “bradesco” does not appear in the Respondent’s denomination, or any other identification.
Furthermore, on the webpage related to the disputed domain name, there are some links, some of which make reference to car insurance, that lead to webpages which contain many advertisements. If there is no reference to the Respondent’s activities or services, it is possible to infer that the only plausible explanation for the Respondent’s selection of the disputed domain name is to exploit in an unauthorized fashion the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark, which cannot be considered, in any case, a bona fide offering of goods or services in the sense of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.
The links on the related webpages are further evidence that the Respondent has not made or is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name in the sense of paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted such prima facie case, as it did not provide any Response to the Complainant’s contentions.
Accordingly, as the Panel cannot find any indication of any circumstances that indicate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Panel considers that the Complainant has established the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent’s bad faith in registration and use of the disputed domain name is evidenced by the registration and use of the notorious trademark BRADESCO as the major component of the disputed domain name, in circumstances in which the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in said trademark.
Considering the notoriety of the Complainant’s trademark, it is highly unlikely that the Respondent chose the disputed domain name just by chance, as also stated in other previous UDRP cases involving the Complainant (see Banco Bradesco S/A v. Martha Dantas, WIPO Case No. D2010-0646; Banco Bradesco S.A. v. Noori net, WIPO Case No. D2010-1553 and Banco Bradesco S/A. v. Afonso Miranda, WIPO Case No. D2010-0645).
Moreover, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name cannot be considered either fair use or noncommercial use. Rather, the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to benefit from the Complainant’s worldwide reputation in the field of banking and financial services.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established also the third element of paragraph 4(a) 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 disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Beatrice Onica Jarka

Sole Panelist



Date: August 25, 2015



Yüklə 35.87 Kb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©azrefs.org 2020
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

gir | qeydiyyatdan keç
    Ana səhifə


yükləyin