The Complainant is Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel of Paris, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.
The Respondents are Mark Leparoux of Paris, France / Locked Domain, and David William of Bordeaux, France / Locked Domain / Pending UDRP result Locked Domain. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain names and are registered with Ascio Technologies Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 18, 2013. On July 19, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On July 22, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondents’ and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 24, 2013 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 29, 2013. Upon further clarification from the Registrar, the Center sent an email communication to the Complaint on August 7, 2013 with an updated registrant and contact information. The Complaint filed a second amended Complaint on August 12, 2013.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaints 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 paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a) of the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 13, 2013. In accordance with paragraph 5(a) of the Rules, the due date for Response was September 2, 2013. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on September 4, 2013.
The Center appointed Christophe Caron as the sole panelist in this matter on September 26, 2013. 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 paragraph 7 of the Rules. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant, Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, is the central body for the Crédit Mutuel Banking Group. CREDIT MUTUEL is a famous French banking and insurance service group. Crédit Mutuel operates an Internet website at the address “”.
The Complainant is the owner of the following trademarks:
- French semi-figurative trademark CREDIT MUTUEL number 1475940, filed on July 8, 1988, in international classes 35 and 36;
- French semi-figurative trademark CREDIT MUTUEL number 1646012, filed on November 20, 1990 in international classes 16, 35, 36, 38 and 41; and
- International semi-figurative trademark CREDIT MUTUEL number 570182, filed on May 17, 1991 in international classes 16, 35, 36, 38 and 41.
The Complainant is also the owner of several domains names that include the terms “credit mutuel”.
The disputed domain name was registered on May 5, 2013, and the disputed domain name was registered on May 10, 2013. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
First of all, the Complainant requests that the Panel consolidate the two requests regarding the domain names and .
The Complainant then makes the following submissions and arguments.
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain names and are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s famous trademark CREDIT MUTUEL. The addition of the letter “c” and the word “ssl” does not alter the risk of confusion with the trademarks.
The Complainant adds that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Respondents are not related in any way to the Complainant’s business. The Complainant has granted no license or authorization to the Respondents to make any use or apply for registration of the disputed domain names.
According to the Complainant, in view of the reputation and the well-known of the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL in the field of banking and financial services, it is difficult to imagine that the Respondents could have ignored it at the time they applied for the very confusingly similar disputed domain names. Moreover, it is impossible the Respondents were not aware of the existence of CREDIT MUTUEL when they registered the disputed domain names, given that the disputed domain names initially resolve to a page infringing the Complainant’s rights by reproducing the Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL LA BANQUE A QUI PARLER trademark, graphic content and charter.
The Complainant considers that the Respondents’ use of the disputed domain names constitutes bad faith use. These disputed domain names are currently inactive. It seems to be obvious that the passive holding by the Respondents must be considered as bad faith. The disputed domain names were first used for leading a phishing attack against the Complainant’s group as evidenced in the Annexes to the Complaint. According to the Complainant, the disputed domain names are registered for the purpose of disrupting its business.
Consequently, the Complainant states that the Respondents should be considered to have registered and to be using the disputed domain names in bad faith.
For all of the above reasons, the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain names. B. Respondents
The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Procedural Issue: Multiple Respondents and Consolidation
Concerning the consolidation of the disputes, according to paragraphs 3(c) and 10(e) of the Policy and UDPR precedents, the Panel considers that many factors demonstrate that the disputed domain names were subject to common control under a single identity, such as:
- the email address provided in the WhoIs database is the same for both disputed domain names (i.e. );
- the Registrar is the same;
- the domain server information is identical;
- both addresses of the registrants are inaccurate;
- both disputed domain names were at first resolving to identical websites; and
- both domain names were registered in May 2013.
In light of this, the Panel finds that the consolidation is procedurally efficient.
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements:
(i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondents have 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. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant is the owner of French and international trademarks CREDIT MUTUEL.
It is obvious that the disputed domain names and reproduce the Complainant’s trademarks. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. Furthermore, the likelihood of confusion is accentuated by the notoriety of the CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks.
Moreover, the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL is entirely reproduced in the disputed domain names. It leads the public to believe that the Complainant is the owner of the disputed domain names. In the Panel’s opinion, the addition of the letter “c” or the term “ssl” in the disputed domain names is not relevant.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to many registered trademarks in which Complainant has rights. Thus, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides examples of circumstances that can demonstrate the existence of rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, as follows:
“(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate non commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”
This Panel is satisfied that the Respondents do not appear to have been commonly known by the disputed domain names, they are not a licensee or an agent of the Complainant, nor in any way are authorized to use the Complainant’s trademarks.
Furthermore, according to the Registrar’s verification, both disputed domain names were registered on May 2013, after the Complainant’s registration of its famous trademarks. The Respondents cannot claim to have been using the terms “credit mutuel”, without being aware of the Complainant’s rights to it. To the Panel, this proves that the Respondents’ interests cannot have been legitimate.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondents are not using the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Indeed, the Respondents initially chose the disputed domain names based on registered trademark in order to generate traffic to a false CREDIT MUTUEL website that could be set up for a phishing attack.
The Respondents are using the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark in order to redirecting Internet users to a false website and consequently, the Respondents are tarnishing the CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks.
Hence, the Panel finds that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is also satisfied. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances, which “in particular but without limitation”, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. These four circumstances, which are framed in the alternative, but are expressly non-exclusive, are:
“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”
Regarding the reputation of the CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks in the field of the banking and commercial service, it is difficult to imagine that the Respondents could have ignored it at the time of the registration noting that both Respondents appear to be located in France. The Panel therefore considers that the disputed domain names have been registered in bad faith.
Moreover, the Respondents registered the disputed domain names under fanciful references, in violation of the Policy. It may assert the bad faith registration of the disputed domain names.
The Respondents were aware of the existence of the Complainant, given that the disputed domain names initially resolve to an Internet page reproducing the Complainant’s trademarks. The Panel Notes that the disputed domain names, which are currently inactive, were first used for leading a phishing attack against the Complainant’s group. Such use can only be considered as a bad faith use of the disputed domain names. By using the disputed domain names in such a manner, the Respondents have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to their website.
Moreover, the disputed domain names are currently inactive (following the Complainant’s action). Passive holding of a domain name can also be an evidence of bad faith use.
For all these reasons, it appears to this Panel that the disputed domain names and have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is made out. 7. Decision
In accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel finds that:
1) the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to some trademarks in which the Complainant has rights;
2) the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and
3) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
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 names and be transferred to the Complainant.
Christophe Caron
Sole Panelist
Date: October 9, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy