WIPO Domain Name Decision D2018-1688 for creditmutueluniversel.com
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel v. Whois Agent, Domain Protection Services, Inc. / Godwine Papin Case No. D2018-1688 1. The Parties
The Complainant is Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel of Paris, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.
The Respondent is Whois Agent, Domain Protection Services, Inc. of Denver, Colorado, United States of America / Godwine Papin of Cotonou, Benin. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with N, Inc. (N LLC) (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 26, 2018. On July 26, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 26, 2018, 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 27, 2018 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 1, 2018.
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, and the proceedings commenced on August 3, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 23, 2018. On August 6, 2018, the Respondent sent email communications to the Center regarding a possible settlement. The Center did not receive a request for suspension from the Complainant and informed the Parties that the proceeding would continue. The Respondent did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties that would proceed to panel appointment on August 24, 2018. The Center received further email communications from the Respondent on August 24, 2018, and August 30, 2018.
On August 30, 2018, the Complainant requested the suspension of the proceeding for a period of 30 days, for the purpose of engaging in settlement discussions with the Respondent. The Notification of Suspension was sent by the Center to the Parties on August 30, 2018. On September 21, 2018, the Complainant informed the Center that the Parties were not able to settle the dispute and requested the reinstitution of the Proceeding. The Center notified the Parties of the Reinstitution of Proceeding on September 21, 2018.
The Center appointed Kiyoshi Tsuru as the sole panelist in this matter on September 25, 2018. 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 the political and central body for the banking group Credit Mutuel. Credit Mutuel is the second French banking and insurance services group. It has provided its services to 12 million clients for more than a century, and it offers online financial services.
The Complainant owns, among others, the following trademark registrations:
Trademark
Registration Number
Filing Date
Class
Jurisdiction
CREDIT MUTUEL
1475940
July 8, 1988
35 and 36
France
CREDIT MUTUEL
1646012
November 20, 1990
16, 35, 36, 38 and 41
France
CREDIT MUTUEL
9943135
May 5, 2011
9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, 45
European Union
CREDIT MUTUEL
570182
May 17, 1991
16, 35, 36, 38 and 41
International trademark (designation in Benelux, Italy and Portugal)
The Complainant owns directly or through its subsidiary EURO INFORMATION, the following domain names:
- registered on September 13, 2001;
- registered on June 3, 2002;
- registered on August 10, 1995;
- registered on October 28 1995;
- registered on October 3, 1996;
The disputed domain name was registered on July 9, 2018. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant states the following: (i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
That the Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations worldwide. That the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark CREDIT MUTUEL, which has been recognized as well-known in other decisions issued under the Policy, because it incorporates said trademark in its entirety.
That the inclusion of the additional term “universel” does not prevent the disputed domain name from being identical or confusingly similar to its trademark CREDIT MUTUEL, but quite the opposite, creates a specific link with said trademark, as this term could refer to one of the Complainant’s services/products “le chèque emploi service universel” (worker’s money voucher).
That the relevant part of the disputed domain name is the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL, which is why (notwithstanding the inclusion of the term “universel”) the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark is evident. (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
That the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. That the Respondent is not in any way related to the Complainant’s banking group, and that the Complainant has never given him any authorization to use its trademark CREDIT MUTUEL.
That the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. >
That the Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide and noncommercial offering of goods and/or services.
That the website to which the disputed domain name resolved offered online banking loans, a fact that reinforces the risk of confusion in the minds of Internet consumers. (iii) Registration and Use of Bad Faith
That the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL is well and widely known in the field of banking and financial service.
That it therefore seems impossible to conceive that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s banking group and its trademark CREDIT MUTUEL at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.
That the act of reproducing the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL together with the French term “universel” as an indication of the financial goods or services that the Complainant renders or offers online through its official web site (name