The Complainant is Confédération Nationale Du Crédit Mutuel of Paris, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.
The Respondents are Domain Privacy Group of Burlington, Massachusetts, United States of America (“US”) / Domain Support, Dotster of Burlington, Massachusetts, US / Domain Support, iPage of Burlington, Massachusetts, US. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , , , , , , and are registered with D, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 21, 2014. On February 21, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On February 24, 2014, 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 March 3, 2014, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant did not wish to file an amendment to the Complaint.
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 March 4, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 24, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 25, 2014.
The Center appointed Jonas Gulliksson as the sole panelist in this matter on April 1, 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 Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel (“the Complainant”), a French association operating in the fields of banking and finance.
The disputed domain names were registered as the following:
- on May 9, 2013.
- on May 10, 2013.
- on May 21, 2013.
- on May 27, 2013.
- on May 31, 2013.
- on September 14, 2013.
- on September 14, 2013.
- on December 8, 2013.
- on December 8, 2013. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Consolidation of the Respondents
The Complainant requests the Panel, in the view of paragraphs 3(c) and 10(e) of the Rules, to consolidate the disputed domain names because it seems to be the same holder and therefore use of a single administrative proceeding.
The Complainant reminds that the Respondent Domain Support, iPage is identified, in the WhoIs database, as the current registrant of the disputed domain names , , , , and . The contact details are identical for each of the above mentioned disputed domain names, except the dates of registration.
The postal addresses of the Respondents Domain Support, Dotster and Domain Privacy Group, registrants of the disputed domain names , and , are strictly identical to those of the Respondent, Domain Support, iPage. This fact emphasizes that the same person probably is involved in this case.
Identical addresses have already been considered as evidence by UDRP panels in order to establish consolidation.
It is also noted that the Registrar is the same for the disputed domain names, which also is an element to demonstrate strong similarities between several addresses. See for instance regarding and Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Mark Leparoux / Locked Domain and David William / Locked Domain / Pending UDRP result Locked Domain, WIPO Case No. D2013-1305.
The Complainant underlines that each of the disputed domain names incorporates the Complainant’s well-known trademark CREDIT MUTUEL in its entirety, associated with letters or with generic or descriptive words. These links between different registrants have also been considered as evidence.
Most of the disputed domain names are used for the same purpose. These indeed resolve to identical, at least highly similar parking pages. The similarities of these websites demonstrate the fact that the same person is involved in this matter.
Regarding the identities specifically related to the Respondent Domain Privacy Group and the Respondent Domain Support, Dotster the Complainant notes the following. Firstly, there is some overlap in the contact details of the disputed domain names , and . The WhoIs database indicates the same Registration Service Provider, which is “D”, and that the domain servers’ information is identical. These aforesaid disputed domain names are also configured on the same servers. These elements indicating that Domain Privacy Group is presumably Dotster’s or iPage’s privacy service demonstrate the strong similarities between all three registrants. Secondly, the disputed domain names and were both registered on the same day. This circumstance has been considered as evidence to establish consolidation. Thirdly, the same descriptive term “clients”, used by Domain Privacy Group in the disputed domain name , has also been added to the disputed domain name , owned by the Respondent Domain Support, Dotster, which indicates that the same person is involved in this case.
Regarding other identities specifically related to the Respondents, Dotster and Domain Support, iPage the Complainant contends as follows. Firstly, the administrative and technical contacts of the disputed domain names are strongly similar. The administrative contact is indeed the same, “Domain support”, as well as the technical contact which has the same postal addresses. The sole difference in respective WhoIs is the organization indicated (Dotster or iPage), the email addresses and the phone numbers. The fax number mentioned for the technical support is the same. The registrant name indicated in the WhoIs database of the disputed domain names is strictly identical (Domain Support). At last, Dotster is linked to iPage, which indeed promotes Dotster’s services on its own website. Furthermore, the Complainant understood after several researches that iPage was a brand owned by the Endurance International Group, which is located at the same postal address indicated for every disputed domain name. Dotster’s privacy policy describes Dotster as “a part of the Endurance International Group”. Therefore, it can be assumed that iPage, Dotster and Domain Privacy Group are actually aliases forming the same identity.
In the light of the above, iPage, Dotster and Domain Privacy Group seem to be the same registrant of the disputed domain names and seem to have registered these last mentioned domain names for an illegitimate purpose.
Thus, considering that all disputed domain names are connected to each other, the Complainant requests consolidation of the Respondents and transfer of the above mentioned domain names to the Complainant. Grounds
The Complainant is the registered owner of a large number of trademarks consisting or including the wording “credit mutuel” both in France and internationally. The Complainant is for instance the registered owner of the following trademarks:
-- CREDIT MUTUEL, French semi-figurative trademark No. 1475940 of July 8, 1988.
-- CREDIT MUTUEL, French semi-figurative trademark No. 1646012 of November 20, 1990.
-- CREDIT MUTUEL, semi-figurative International trademark No. 570 182 of May 17, 1991.
-- CREDIT MUTUEL LA BANQUE A QUI PARLER, figurative Community trademark No. 005146162 of June 19, 2006.
These rights have continuously been used in commerce since their registrations. The Complainant is also using its trademarks as domain names to promote its activities, such as and . Euro-information, a computing subsidiary of the Complainant, has also registered corresponding domain names such as , , and . All of these domain names are pointing to the official website of the Complainant.
The trademark CREDIT MUTUEL has been recognized as well-known in Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Philippe Marie,WIPO Case No. D2010-1513. Therefore, the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL is undoubtedly well-known in the sense of article 6 bis of the Paris Union Convention. According to the French order No. 58-966 of October 16, 1958, the use of the wording “credit mutuel” is reserved to Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel and to its related branches. Identity or confusing similarity with the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL
The disputed domain names , , , and are confusingly similar to the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL. The trademark CREDIT MUTUEL is indeed entirely reproduced in each disputed domain name. The addition of a generic or descriptive word (such as “news” or “clients”) or letters (such as “inf” and “cmg”) as a suffix to a well-known trademark does not alter the risk of confusion with the trademark. On the contrary, a descriptive or generic word is devoid of distinctiveness and the adjunction of letters does not indeed alter the risk of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. The distinctive part of the disputed domain names is and remains the well-known trademark CREDIT MUTUEL.
The generic terms “news” and “clients” associated with the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL create a risk of confusion in the Internet users’ mind. The users can indeed believe that the disputed domain names will respectively resolve to a website belonging to the Complainant and dedicated to its news (), or to a website dedicated to the Complainant’s clients ( and ). The adjunction of the terms “clients” and “news” to a trademark is sufficient to establish confusing similarity. Even if the Complainant’s clients do no associate any meaning to the letters “inf” and “cmg” ( and ), the combination of the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL with these letters does not alter the risk of confusion with this trademark.
The disputed domain names , and have minor sole differences with the Complainant’s trademark, consisting in the adjunction of the letters “c”, “d” and “w”. An adjunction like that does not indeed prevent said disputed domain names from being confusingly similar to the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL and does not indeed alter the risk of confusion. This is a typical case of typosquatting.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL, and the trademark is indeed entirely reproduced in the disputed domain name. The last mentioned domain name consists of the combination of the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL and the geographic abbreviation “fr”, related to France. The addition of the letters “fr” to the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL increases the risk of confusion, given that the Complainant, located substantially in France, exercises the main part of its activities in France. Thus, the combination of both terms clearly misleads the Internet users who can easily believe that the disputed domain name resolves to a website belonging to the Complainant. See for instance Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Nicola Bazar,WIPO Case No. D2013-1572. Rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names
The Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business, not an agent and does not carry out any activity for or has any business with it. The Complainant has granted no license or authorization to the Respondent to make any use, nor apply for registration of the disputed domain names.
Furthermore, the Respondent is using all disputed domain names to attract the Internet users to a parking page containing commercial links directly competing with the services of the Complainant, visibly in order to make illegitimate profit. Indeed, the commercial links refer to targeted advertising and promote websites offering banking and financial services such as credit or savings services. This activivty clearly diverts the Complainant’s customers and may hardly be linked with the exercise of any right or legitimate interest of the Respondent. The Respondent has also used the disputed domain name for an illegitimate purpose, given that this latter was at first resolving to a website set up for a phishing attack. Registered and being used in bad faith
In view of the reputation and the reputation of the 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 the Respondent registered the very confusingly similar disputed domain names. The Respondent obviously knew the Complainant, given that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names in 2013, which is 18 years after the Complainant’s official website was registered in 1995. The real purpose of the Respondent consists of taking advantage from the misspellings by Internet users whose first intention may be to enter the domain name in their browser.
It is impossible that the Respondent was not aware of the existence of CREDIT MUTUEL when the Respondent registered the disputed domain names, given that all domain names resolve to parking pages promoting “coincidentally” banking and financial services.
Furthermore, the Respondent has already been a party to a previous similar UDRP proceeding Confédération nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Ipage,WIPO Case No. D2013-1574. The panel found in that case that “the Respondent at the time of registration of the Domain Names knew of the existence of the Complainant. It is implausible that the Respondent would register seven separate domain names each of which reproduces the Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL Mark with no awareness of the Complainant”.
In view of the above, the choice of wording in the disputed domain names cannot have been made randomly and fully demonstrates the Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant and its activities. This combination of facts is therefore confirming the bad faith registration of the disputed domain names by the Respondent.
The Respondent also uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. As noted previously, the Respondent reproduces the well-known trademark CREDIT MUTUEL in the disputed domain names, which are used to promote competing commercial services through links provided on parking pages. For instance, one link suggested on the parking page accessible from , and named “Bad Credit Fix” resolves to credit comparator’s websites which offer competing services. The parking page, accessible from , suggests other links related to financial services such as “Assurance Crédit Immobilier” or “Calculette Crédit”, which in English stand for “real estate insurance credit” and “credit calculator”. This fraudulent use seems to generate income for the Respondent through the hyperlinks placed on the parking pages using a pay-per-click system. The disputed domain names are registered for the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant and for commercial gain. The disputed domain name was firstly used for leading a phishing attack against the Complainant’s group, by substantially reproducing its trademark CREDIT MUTUEL LA BANQUE A QUI PARLER and its graphic charter and content, on which the Complainant has copyrights, without any authorization. Such behaviour is considered as a bad faith act, given that the Respondent clearly had the intent to swindle the Complainant’s clients, believing that they are on a website belonging to the Complainant or consented by it.
Thus, the disputed domain names have been registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Consolidation of the Respondents
This dispute concerns nine separate domain names and three registrants.
Firstly, the Panel has to find whether all disputed domain names can be consolidated in one proceeding. Paragraph 10(e) of the Rules allows the Panel to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that the complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.
The Complainant has shown that all disputed domain names relate to two registrants such as Domain Privacy Group and Domain Support. Domain Support relates to both Dotster and iPage. There is also an overlap of contact details between iPage, Dotster and Domain Privacy Group. Furthermore, to be noticed is that the Registrar for the disputed domain names is the same, all disputed domain names incorporate the same well-known trademark in its entirety, all disputed domain names are used for the same purpose, some of the disputed domain names were registered on the same day, and the several other additional aspects stated by the Complainant.
The Panel accepts the Complainant’s reasons above as being indicative that the disputed domain names are subject to common control by the same person or company, and therefore allows the consolidation. Hereafter, all Respondents shall be referred to in the singular.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove all three of the following elements to be entitled to the relief sought: (i) that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and (iii) that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the holder of two registered French semi-figurative trademarks and one international semi-figurative trademark involving CREDIT MUTUEL. The Complainant has also registered CREDIT MUTUEL LA BANQUE A QUI PARLER as a figurative Community trademark.
According to well established consensus among UDRP panels, the gTLD is not distinguishing. The disputed domain names consist of the Complainant’s trademark with both generic words such as “news” () and “clients” ( and ) or descriptive words such as “inf” (). Other disputed domain names have only minor differences with the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL and consist of the adjunction of the letters “c” (), “d” () and “w” (>); a typical case of typosquatting. At last, one disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark and an addition of the geographic abbreviation “fr” (). The addition of the “fr” refers undoubtedly to France which creates an increased risk of confusion with the trademark, because it directly refers to the country in which the Complainant substantially is located.
Consequently, the Panel finds the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The first element of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is thus fulfilled with respect to all disputed domain names. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In cases when a respondent fails to present a response, the complainant is still required to make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Second Edition (“WIPO Overview, 2.0”), paragraph 2.1., and The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Lorna Kang,WIPO Case No. D2002-1064 and Berlitz Investment Corp. v. Stefan Tinculescu,WIPO Case No. D2003-0465. Further, paragraph 14(b) of the Rules provides that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, a panel shall draw such inferences as it considers appropriate from a failure of a party to comply with a provision or requirement of the Rules.
The Complainant has asserted that no permission has been granted to the Respondent to register the disputed domain names. Moreover, the Complainant has stated that the Respondent has no rights of its own or legitimate interests to the disputed domain names which entirely incorporate the Complainant’s trademarks.
Having considered the submissions of the Complainant, and the absence of a formal response from the Respondent, the Panel finds that the Respondent is not connected with the Complainant or authorized to use the Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks in the disputed domain names. Nor does the Panel find any indications that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names, or has rights or legitimate interests in any other way in the disputed domain names.
In the light of what is stated above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has not proved otherwise. Therefore, the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy is fulfilled. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The disputed domain names were registered many years after the registration date of any of the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL. The Respondent has already been considered to have knowledge of the Complainant’s business, see Confédération du Crédit Mutuel v. iPage,WIPO Case No. D2013-1574. Again, the Respondent has registered nine domain names all confusingly similar to the very same trademarks, and has used eight of them for websites with pay-per-click links related to the Complainant’s field of business, and one for what appeared to be a “phishing website”.
Having regarded these facts, there is in the Panel’s view no doubt that the disputed domain names were registered with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark rights and with the intention of attracting Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the said trademarks. The fact that one of the disputed domain names is currently inactive does not change the Panel’s finding of bad faith in the circumstances of this case. All in all, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names have been registered and used in bad faith. The third and final element of the Policy is fulfilled. 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 names , , , , , , , and be transferred to the Complainant.
Jonas Gulliksson
Sole Panelist
Date: April 15, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy