WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Banque Delubac et Cie v. Mickael Zeitoun, Milscorp Case No. D2018-2705 1. The Parties

Complainant is Banque Delubac et Cie of Le Cheylard, France, represented by Nameshield, France.

Respondent is Mickael Zeitoun, Milscorp of Paris, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 23, 2018. On November 23, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 26, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 7, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 27, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 28, 2018.

The Center appointed Nathalie Dreyfus as the sole panelist in this matter on January 14, 2019. 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.

After examination of the statement and documents submitted by Complainant, the Panel issued a Panel Procedural Order on February 6, 2019 in order to be provided with additional information on Complainant’s prior trademark rights on the sign DELUBAC.

On February 8, 2019, Complainant provided a submission with new exhibits to the Center in response to the Panel Procedural Order. Even though provided with an opportunity, Respondent did not reply to this additional communication. 4. Factual Background

Complainant, Banque Delubac et Cie, is an independent financial institution offering specialized banking services. Complainant offers five main branches of business which are a judicial bank, a bank of property administrators, a savings management bank, an investment bank, and a business and factoring bank.

Complainant claims that it has rights on the European Union trademark DELUBAC, No. 006826135, registered on November 10, 2008, in classes 9, 35, 36, and 41. However, the trademark has expired on April 11, 2018 and has not been duly renewed.

Following the Panel’s Procedural Order issued on February 6, 2019, Complainant submitted that it has rights on several trademarks, containing the term DELUBAC including:

- the French trademark DELUBAC-EDI, No. 3654728 registered on November 6, 2009 in class 36,

- the French trademark DELUBAC FACTOR, No. 3765745 registered on January 28, 2011 in class 36,

- the French trademark DELUBAC-FACTOR, No. 3765778 registered on January 28, 2011 in class 36.

Complainant also owns the domain name and uses it for its official website.

The disputed domain name was registered on November 2, 2016. It redirects to a parking page with commercial links. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark DELUBAC. Complainant argues that the addition of the term “online” does not change the overall impression that the designation is connected to Complainant’s trademark.

Complainant further states that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant also argues that Respondent does not carry out any activity on behalf of Complainant, nor does he have any business with Complainant. Complainant also affirms that no license or authorization has been granted to Respondent to make any use of the trademark or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name. According to Complainant, the fact that the disputed domain name redirects to a registrar parking page with commercial links may not be considered as a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or faire use.

Complainant claims that the domain name was registered and is used in bad faith. Complainant states that Respondent, who is located in France as is Complainant, has targeted Complainant and its trademark DELUBAC. Complainant states that Respondent could not have ignored Complainant’s trademark DELUBAC at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, Complainant asserts that the website in connection with the disputed domain name is a parking page with commercial links. Complainant contends that Respondent has thus attempted to attract Internet users to his own website for commercial gain by using Complainant’s trademark, which is an evidence of bad faith. B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name, Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements are present:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights,

(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name, and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules provides that “[a] Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. Paragraphs 10(b) and 10(d) also provide that “[i]n all cases, the Panel shall ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case” and that “[t]he Panel shall determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and