The Complainant is Confédération Nationale du Credit Mutuel of Paris, France, represented by Meyer & Partenaires, France.
The Respondent is WHB WHBNETWORKS of United States of America (“US”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 11, 2013. On December 11, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 11, 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 December 20, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 9, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 10, 2014.
The Center appointed Fleur Hinton as the sole panelist in this matter on January 16, 2014. 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 a French association in the financial sector. It sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent but did not receive any response. As a result of that the Complainant filed this Complaint.
The Complainant has various trade mark registrations for the trade mark CREDIT MUTUEL in France, the EU and other jurisdictions. The earliest registration is French and dates from July 8, 1988 (no. 1475940). It also has registered the domain names and . Its computing subsidiary, Euro-Information, has registered the domain names , , and . 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant argues that its name, trade mark and domain names incorporating its trade mark CREDIT MUTUEL are recognized as having become well known and that this fact was also recognized in UDRP decision Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel v. Phillippe Marie, WIPO Case No. D2010-1513 involving a complaint by the Complainant in relation to the domain name . Therefore, it argues, the trade mark CREDIT MUTUEL is well known within the meaning of Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention.
The Complainant cites previous UDRP decisions for the proposition that neither the “www” nor the “.com” components of the disputed domain name suffice to distinguish between the Complainant’s trade mark CREDIT MUTUEL and the disputed domain name because these components lack distinctiveness. The Complainant cites several previous UDRP decisions in which this has been established. The specific cases are Credit Commercial et Industriel v. Domain Drop S.A., WIPO Case No. D2007-0666 in respect of the domain name , Unilever Supply Chain Inc v. Kal Kuchora WIPO Case No. D2005-1347 in respect of the domain name , Deutsche Telekom AG v. Luis Javier Collazos WIPO Case No. D2003-0371 in respect of the domain name and Nike Inc v. Alex Nike WIPO Case No. D2001-1115 in respect of the domain name .
Further, the Complainant contends, the numeral “3” does not change the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trade mark. In this regard, the Complainant refers to Cellular One Group v Digital Communications Inc, WIPO Case No. D2001-0189 in respect of the domain name .
Finally, it argues, the presence of the “www” without the full stop is likely to be overlooked by Internet users and, therefore, add to the likelihood that they will think that they are on the Complainant’s website.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Specifically, it has not been licensed or otherwise authorized by the Complainant. The use being made by the Respondent is not legitimate use. The disputed domain name is used for a parking page to redirect Internet users to other websites some of which are of competitors of the Complainant. There are UDRP decisions in which the panels have found that the use of a domain name to redirect Internet users to the competitors of a complainant is indicative of illegitimate use. The Complainant cites Development Credit Bank Limited v. Direct Privacy ID ED191, WIPO Case No. D2011-0786 in respect of the domain name in which the panel found that the establishment of a parking page to redirect Internet users to other websites, some of them owned by the complainant’s competitors cannot be the base of rights or legitimate interests.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith and that it is being used in bad faith. It is not credible that the Respondent could not have been aware of the Complainant’s trade mark and reputation in the financial field, especially as the disputed domain name was used to redirect Internet users to other websites offering financial services.
The Complainant also refers to other decisions in which the panel in question found a presumption of bad faith where the disputed domain name lead to a parking website which redirected Internet users to the websites of the Complainant’s competitors. It refers to Credit Industriel et Commerciale SA v. Jeongyong Cho, WIPO Case No. D2013-1263 in respect of the domain name and Arthur Guinness Son & Co (Dublin) Limited v. Steel Vertigogo, WIPO Case No. D2001-0020 in respect of the domain name and asserts that this principle is well established. It is clear that the Respondent had the Complainant in mind when it registered the disputed domain name. Further, the Respondent’s use of false details on the WhoIs also demonstrates bad faith. The Complainant refers in this regard to Deutsche Telekom AG v. Britt Cordon, WIPO Case No. D2004-0487 in respect of the domain name . The panel found that providing incorrect contact details was evidence of bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
The Policy requires that the Complainant proves the following:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(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
The disputed domain name is very similar to the Complainant’s trade mark CREDIT MUTUEL. The only points of differentiation are “www”, “.com” and “3”. The first two of these lack distinctiveness. The numeral “3” also does not suffice to distinguish between the Complainant’s trade mark and the disputed domain name. The Complainant’s trade mark has been in use for a long time and the facts establish that it is very well known and has recognition as the Complainant’s trade mark. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not replied to the Complaint and has not lodged a Response to the Complaint. The Respondent has not, therefore provided any information as to any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Complainant need only establish a prima facie case that the Respondent has neither rights nor legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, paragraph 2.1 (“WIPO Overview 2.0”).
In The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Lorna Kang,WIPO Case No. D2002-1064 the panel found that:
“To satisfy the requirements of Policy paragraph 4(c)(i), the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name must be in connection with a “bona fide” offering of goods or services. In some circumstances, a website advertising and selling financial magazines or financial products and services may constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. In the circumstances of this case, however, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not “bona fide” within the meaning of Policy paragraph 4(c)(i) because: (a) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known trade mark and its domain name; (b) there is no apparent connection or relationship between the disputed domain name and the Respondent or its websites or their content; and (c) there is no other apparent legitimate justification for the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name for its websites. In addition, the Panel draws an adverse inference from the Respondent’s failure to provide any explanation or rationale for its use of the disputed domain name for its websites.”
The Complainant has stated that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the disputed domain name. Once the Complainant has made out a prima facie case, the Respondent has the onus of proving that it does have rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent has not lodged any Response to this Complaint and, therefore, has not shown that it has any rights or legitimate interests.
In view of the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s trade mark, the fact that the disputed domain name redirects to a parking page with links to the websites of the Complainant’s competitors and the fact that the Respondent has chosen not to participate in these proceedings, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The onus is on the Complainant to establish that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant has established that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that it has declined to take part in these proceedings. Further, the Respondent has provided incorrect contact details which show on the WhoIs record.
The Panel finds that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trade mark CREDIT MUTUEL in view of the name of the mark and the Respondent’s redirection of Internet users to the websites of the Complainant’s competitors.
The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name as a means of attracting Internet users to the website in order to redirect those users to other websites, including those of competitors is in itself an indication of use in bad faith.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name 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.
Fleur Hinton
Sole Panelist
Date: February 2, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy