WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Conf�d�ration Nationale du Cr�dit Mutuel v. Web Advertising Corp.
Case No. D2007-0655
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Conf�d�ration Nationale du Cr�dit Mutuel of Paris, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, Strasbourg, France.
The Respondent is Web Advertising Corp. of Nassau, Bahamas.
2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain name is registered with CapitolDomains LLC; the disputed domain names and are registered with BelgiumDomains LLC; the disputed domain name is registered with DomainDoorman LLC. Where appropriate, the four disputed domain names will be referred to collectively as the “Domain Names”.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 2, 2007 by email and on May 4, 2007 in hardcopy. On May 7, 2007, the Center acknowledged receipt of the Complaint by email to Complainant, the representative of Complainant and the Respondent. On May 4 and 5, 2007, the Center transmitted by email to CapitolDomains LLC, BelgiumDomains LLC and to DomainDoorman LLC requests for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names at issue. On May 5, 2007, CapitolDomains LLC, BelgiumDomains LLC and DomainDoorman LLC transmitted by email to the Center their verification responses confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant of the Domain Names and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), 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 May 15, 2007. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for the Response was June 4, 2007. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 8, 2007.
The Center appointed Michael A.R. Bernasconi as the Sole Panelist in this matter on June 19, 2007. 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 one of the largest banking groups in France, offering all kinds of financial services and products, including online banking services under the domain name . The Complainant provides services to more than 14 million clients and consists of a network of 3100 offices in France, managed through 18 regional groups. In addition, the Complainant has 40 offices outside of France, in other places of Europe, North Africa, the United States and Asia, through its subsidiary CIC, a commercial bank acquired in 1998.
The Complainant provided evidence of a number of trademark registrations consisting of the term “Credit Mutuel”, for instance:
- the French figurative trademark CREDIT MUTUEL in respect of classes 35 and 36 of the Nice Agreement, registered on July 8, 1988 (registration no. 1475940),
- the French figurative trademark CREDIT MUTUEL in respect of classes 16, 35, 36, 38 and 41 of the Nice Agreement, registered on November 20, 1990 (registration no. 1646012),
- the international figurative trademark CREDIT MUTUEL in respect of classes 16, 35, 36, 38 and 41 of the Nice Agreement, registered on May 17, 1991 (registration no. 570182), and
- the European Community figurative trademark CREDIT MUTUEL in respect of classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 32, 43, 44 and 45 of the Nice Agreement, filed on June 19, 2006 (trademark no. 005146162).
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on September 13, 2006, the disputed domain name on July 6, 2006, the disputed domain name on July 1, 2006, and the disputed domain name on November 10, 2006.
According to the webpage print-outs provided by the Complainant dated April 24, 2007, the Respondent’s websites under the disputed Domain Names contained a large number of links to numerous commercial websites, in particular links to websites of French competitors of Complainant offering financial services. This was confirmed by an informal check conducted by the Sole Panelist on July 3, 2007.
The Respondent has been involved as Respondent in several administrative proceedings before the Center and the National Arbitration Forum (SANOFI-AVENTIS, AVENTIS PHARMA DEUTSCHLAND GmbH v. WEB ADVERTISING, Corp., WIPO Case No. D2006-1273; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Web Advertising, Corp., WIPO Case No. D2006-1244; Cr�dit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. Web Advertising Corp., WIPO Case No. D2006-1418; and NAF Cases Nos. 771891, 792048, 836506). Those proceedings resulted in the Respondent’s domain names being transferred to the respective complainants.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL.
The only differences between the trademark and the disputed domain name are the missing letter “T” in the word “credit” and the addition of the letters “LE” at the end of the domain name. Because in France “Credit Mutuel” and “Credit Mutuelle” are similar in meaning, sounding and visual appearance, the Complainant asserts that can be considered as a mere misspelling of the Complainant’s trademarks and therefore creates a presumption of likelihood confusion.
The only differences between the trademark and the disputed domain name are the substitution of the letter “T” with the letter “R”. The other eleven of the twelve letters are identical and in the same order. The Complainant considers this misspelling as evidence that the Respondent has engaged in typosquatting.
The disputed domain name combines the trademark, that is entirely reproduced, with the geographical term “de Bretagne”, which refers to one of the Complainant’s group federations named “Credit Mutuel de Bretagne Federation”. The Complainant asserts that this combination creates a risk of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark and services.
The disputed domain name combines the trademark, that is entirely reproduced, with the suffix “participation”, which refers to the Complainant’s salary saving scheme named “Credit Mutuel Participation”. The Complainant asserts that this combination creates a risk of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark and services.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed Domain Names. The Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business and has not been given authorization to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent is not currently and has never been known under the names CREDIMUTUELLE, CREDIRMUTUEL, CREDITMUTUELDEBRETAGNE or CREDITMUTUELPARTICIPATION. The disputed Domain Names resolve to websites where links are provided to French third-parties offering banking and financial products and services. The Complainant claims that the disputed Domain Names have been registered by Respondent to take advantage of Complainant’s renown and divert Internet users to competing websites through a “pay per click” domain parking solution. The Complainant contends that the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a third party’s trademark for the purpose of hosting a website that offers a variety of links to third party websites offering similar goods and services as those offered under the trademark is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or a non-commercial fair use.
The Complainant believes that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s business, which has existed for more than a century, and its well-known trademarks before the disputed Domain Names were registered. The Complainant cites the decision Federation Nationale du Credit Mutuel v. Marley Byran, WIPO Case No. D2007-0072, to support its argument that the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL is well-known and that it is unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the time it registered the Domain Names. Further, the Complainant cites the decision Cr�dit Industriel et Commercial S.A., Banque Scalbert Dupon S.A. v. LaPorte Holdings Inc., WIPO Case No. D2004-1110, to support its argument that it is obvious from the categories of links used by the Respondent on the litigious websites that the latter was aware of Complainant’s identity and activities. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is using the disputed Domain Names in bad faith to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its parking websites on which several links are displayed directing users directly to French competitors of Complainant offering banking and financial services and generating revenue to the benefit of the Respondent through a “pay per click” domain parking program.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
If the Complainant is to succeed, it must prove each of the three elements referred to in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, namely that:
i. the disputed Domain Name are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
ii. the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed Domain Names; and
iii. the disputed Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
The Panel will proceed to establish whether the Complainant has discharged the burden of proof in respect of each of the three elements referred to in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has furnished the Panel with documents showing that it owns valid registrations of the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL in several countries.
The disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL are differentiated by the omission of the letter “T” in the word “credit” and by the addition of the letters “LE” at the end of the domain name only. Despite these minor differences, the domain name at issue and the Complainant’s trademark are pronounced in the same way in the French language. The differences do little to distinguish the domain name at issue from the Complainant’s trademarks. Numerous prior UDRP decisions have held that such minor deviations do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between a domain name in dispute and a valid trademark (see, e.g., Cr�dit Industriel et Commercial S.A., Banque Scalbert Dupon S.A. v. LaPorte Holdings Inc., WIPO Case No. D2004-1110).
The disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL differ only in terms of the substitution of the letter “T” with the letter “R”. Numerous prior UDRP decisions have held that a slight alphabetical variation from a known trademark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between a domain name and a valid trademark and have considered this as an act of typosquatting (see, e.g., Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft v. New York TV Tickets Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-1314).
The only difference between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL is the addition of the geographical term “de Bretagne”, which refers to one of the Complainant’s group federations named “Credit Mutuel de Bretagne Federation”. Numerous prior UDRP decisions have recognized that incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark, and that the addition of a geographical area does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between a domain name and a valid trademark (see, e.g., The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. v. Vidudala Prasad, WIPO Case No. D2001-1493).
The only difference between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL is the addition of the generic word “participation”, which refers to the Complainant’s salary saving scheme named “Credit Mutuel Participation”. As mentioned above, numerous prior UDRP decisions have recognized that incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark, and that the addition of a generic term to a distinctive trademark in many cases does not change the overall impression of the designation as being a domain name connected to the trademark’s owner (see, e.g., PepsiCo, Inc. v. PEPSI, SRL and EMS COMPUTER INDUSTRY, WIPO Case No. D2003-0696).
The Panel finds that the disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL and that the Complainant therefore fulfills paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
From the print-outs of the websites under the disputed Domain Names dated April 24, 2007 submitted by the Complainant, it appears that the Respondent is using the disputed Domain Names for the purpose of hosting websites that provide a variety of links to French third parties’ websites offering banking and financial products and services and that divert Internet users to these websites. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services and cannot be found to be a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed Domain Names (Teva Pharmaceutical USA, Inc. v. Mode L, WIPO Case No. D2007-0369).
The Respondent has not filed a response in this case nor offered any evidence suggesting its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed Domain Names. As a result, the Panel finds no evidence to support that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed Domain Names.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has successfully demonstrated that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed Domain Names and that the Complainant fulfills paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, it shall be deemed to be evidence of registration and use in bad faith if the use of a domain name intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a site by creating a likelihood of confusion with a complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of a website.
The disputed Domain Names were registered more than 15 years after the Complainant acquired registered rights in the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL. The Complainant is one of the largest banking groups in France offering all kind of financial services and products, including online banking services under the domain name . It has a network of 3100 offices in France and 40 offices in other places of Europe, North Africa, United States and Asia. In light of Complainant’s reputation, the similarity between the four disputed Domain Names and the Complainant’s trademarks and the fact that websites under the disputed Domain Names provide links to French competitors of the Complainant only, it is implausible that Respondent had registered and used the disputed Domain Names without knowledge of the Complainant’s prior rights and use. Numerous panels have held that the registration and use of a domain name to redirect Internet users to websites of competing organizations constitutes bad faith registration and use under the Policy (National City Corporation v. MH Networks LLC, WIPO Case No. D2004-0128). Taking into account the content of the websites under the Domain Names at issue, the Panel finds that the likely aim of this use of the disputed Domain Names is to divert Internet traffic to the Respondent’s website by creating confusion in the minds of Internet users as to the affiliation of the Respondent’s website. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent receives a commission when an Internet user clicks through to one of the links provided and although there is no direct evidence of this, noting also the Respondent’s failure to reply, the Panel infers that, on the balance of probabilities, this is highly likely and accepts that commercial gain is made by the Respondent by its use of the disputed Domain Names (Teva Pharmaceutical USA, Inc. v. Mode L, WIPO Case No. D2007-0369).
Therefore, the Panel finds that the registration and the use of the disputed Domain Names by the Respondent to be in bad faith.
In addition to this, the unrefuted and apparent act of typosquatting by the Respondent is viewed by the Panel as further evidence of registration and use in bad faith.
Finally, the Panel notes that the Respondent has apparently been found in several other administrative proceedings to have registered and used domain names in bad faith (e.g., Cr�dit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. Web Advertising Corp., WIPO Case No. D2006-1418).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy is satisfied and that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed Domain Names in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(a) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that all four disputed Domain Names be transferred to the Complainant.
Michele Bernasconi
Sole Panelist
Dated: July 10, 2007
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy