8/6/10 9:43 AMWIPO Domain Name Decision: D2010-0737Page 2 of 5http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2010/d2010-0737.html
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and theproceedings commenced May 19, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for any Response was June 8,2010. The Response was filed with the Center June 9, 2010.On June 23, 2010 prior to the appointment of the Panel, the Complainant submitted a proposed Supplemental Filing. On June 30,2010, the Respondent submitted a supplemental filing in response to the Complainant’s proposed supplemental filing.The Center appointed Warwick A. Rothnie, Willem J. H. Leppink and Richard G. Lyon as panelists in this matter on July 5, 2010. ThePanel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member of 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 was founded in 1994 in the Netherlands. It provides banking and financial services in a number of countries.According to the Complainant’s website,
when the Complainant was founded in 1994 it was part of Fiba Holding AS and traded under the name “Finansbank”. Further, it was not until after the sale of its Finansbank AS Turkey division to the National Bank of Greece in2006 that the Complainant was rebranded to become Credit Europe Bank NV.The Complainant has submitted evidence of a number of registered trademarks that include the words “Credit Europe,” the earliest of which were applied for on 25 and 28 September 2006. One of these is Benelux registration No 808175 for Credit Europe with a deviceof a diamond within a circle separating the word “Credit” from “Europe”, which is registered for a range of goods and services inInternational Classes 9, 16, 35 and 36. Another is Benelux registration No. 808230 for CreditEurope Bank with the same “diamond in acircle” device separating the words “Europe” and “Bank”. The Complainant also has International Registrations flowing from thesetrademarks, although protection has been refused in some of the countries in which it was sought.The whois record indicates that the disputed domain name was registered in November 2001. However, the Respondent states that itfirst obtained the registration on October 15, 2003.The Respondent, or a company associated with him, has a business providing a range of Internet services. It would appear from other UDRP decisions referred to by both the Complainant and the Respondent that the Respondent, or his company, has registered other domain names for use in connection with search portals and the generation of advertising revenues.Prior to the Complaint being filed, the disputed domain name resolved to a website which contained material relating to the financial or credit standing of various European countries. The Complainant contends, and the Respondent does not dispute, that this materialhas simply been extracted from a website operated by the British Broadcasting Corporation.Before the Complaint was filed, representatives of the Complainant sought to negotiate purchase of the disputed domain name fromthe Respondent. In response to the Complainant’s offer of EUR 5,000, the Respondent requested payment in the range of EUR200,000. Further negotiations in which the Complainant offered substantially higher amounts resulted in only a small reduction by theRespondent and no agreement was reached.
5. Discussion and FindingsA. Procedural matters
Before addressing the substantive requirements under the Policy, the Panel deals with two procedural matters.First, the Response was
by the Center in Geneva some five hours after midnight on the due date for its submission. Therelevant record of the email communication indicates that the Response was transmitted on June 8, 2010 in the United States wherethe Respondent’s counsel is located. Accordingly, the Response was timely
for the purpose of paragraph 2(f)(i) of theRules, bearing in mind the time difference between Switzerland (where the Center is located) and the United States (where theRespondent’s counsel is located). In the circumstances, therefore, the Response was filed within time and the Panel accepts theResponse as part of the Record.Apart from documents requested by the Panel pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Rules, neither the Policy nor the Rules expresslyprovide for supplemental filings. Their admissibility is therefore in the discretion of the Panel bearing in mind the requirements under paragraph 10 of the Rules to ensure that the proceeding is conducted with due expedition and both parties are treated equally, witheach party being given a fair opportunity to present its case.