The Complainant is Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel of Paris, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.
The Respondent is Laycose Gernadt of Paris, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Melbourne IT Ltd (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 14, 2013. On August 14, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 15, 2013, 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 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 28, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 17, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 19, 2013.
The Center appointed Christophe Caron as the sole panelist in this matter on October 9, 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 the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant, Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, is the central body for the Crédit Mutuel Banking Group. Crédit 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 No. 1475940 CREDIT MUTUEL, filed on July 8, 1988, in international classes 35 and 36;
- French semi-figurative trademark No. 1646012, CREDIT MUTUEL filed on November 20, 1990 in international classes 16, 35, 36, 38 and 41;
- International semi-figurative trademark No. 570182 CREDIT MUTUEL, filed on May 17, 1991 in international classes 16, 35, 36, 38 and 41;
- Community figurative trademark No. 005146162 CREDIT MUTUEL LA BANQUE A QUI PARLER , filed on June 19, 2006.
The Complainant is also the owner of several domains names that include the terms “credit mutuel”, such as .
The disputed domain name was registered on April 7, 2013. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant makes the following submissions and arguments.
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s famous trademark CREDIT MUTUEL. The Complainant adds that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.org” has not to be taken into account while comparing the disputed domain name with a trademark.
The Complainant considers that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business. The Complainant has granted no license or authorization to the Respondent to make any use or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.
According to the Complainant, in view of the reputation and the well-known of its trademark CREDIT MUTUEL in the field of banking and financial services, it is difficult to imagine that the Respondent could have ignored it at the time it applied for the very confusingly similar disputed domain name. Moreover, it is impossible the Respondent was not aware of the existence of Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL when it registered the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the fraudulent registration by the Respondent can also be detected in the choice of removing the letter “e” in the disputed domain name. The Complainant adds that the Respondent uses this practice in order to redirect the Internet users who could make misspellings to its website, which is called “typosquatting”.
The Complainant considers that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith use. This disputed domain name is currently inactive. It seems to be obvious that the passive holding by the Respondent must be considered as bad faith. According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name was first used for leading a phishing attack against the Complainant’s group. The Complainant considers that the disputed domain name is registered for the purpose of disrupting its business.
Consequently, the Complainant states that the Respondent should be considered to have registered and to be using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
For all of the above reasons, the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is 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.
The Complainant’s trademarks CREDIT MUTUEL is substantially reproduced in the disputed domain name. The sole difference between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks, consisting in the lack of the first letter “e”, does not prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks. The lack of a letter (“e”) does not indeed alter the risk of confusion with the Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks.
Furthermore, the likelihood of confusion is accentuated by the notoriety of the CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to many registered trademarks in which Complainant has rights. Thus, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. 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 Respondent does not appear to have been commonly known by the disputed domain name, it is not a licensee or an agent of the Complainant, nor in any way authorized to use the Complainant’s trademarks.
Furthermore, according to the Registrar’s verification, the disputed domain name was registered on April 7, 2013, after the Complainant’s registration of its famous trademarks. The Respondent 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 Respondent’s interests cannot have been legitimate.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Indeed, the disputed domain name is currently inactive.
Hence, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is also satisfied. C. 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 Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks in the field of the banking and commercial service, it is difficult to imagine that the Respondent could have ignored it at the time of the registration noting that the Respondent appears to be located in France. The Panel therefore considers that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith.
Moreover, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name under fanciful references, in violation of the Policy. It may assert the bad faith registration of the disputed domain name.
The choice of removing the first letter “e” in the disputed domain name can be an evidence of bad faith use. The Respondent can use this practice in order to redirect Internet users who could make misspellings to its website. It can be considered as a typosquatting act.
The Panel notes that the disputed domain name is currently inactive. Passive holding of a domain name can also be an evidence of bad faith use under specific circumstances.
In this case, the Complainant’s trademarks have a strong reputation and are widely known, where both parties are located, the Respondent has not submitted a response and has provided false contact details. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith.
For all these reasons, it appears to this Panel that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is made out.
In accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel finds that:
1) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights;
2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
3) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 7. Decision
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 name be transferred to the Complainant.
Christophe Caron
Sole Panelist
Date: October 15, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy