The Complainant is Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel of Paris, France, represented by Meyer & Partenaires, France.
The Respondent is Whois Agent, YourJungle Privacy Protection Service of Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States of America / Best Domains Limitada of Grecia, Alajuela, Costa Rica. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with DropE, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 9, 2014. On May 9, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name, with reminders on May 14, 19 and 20, 2014. On May 20, 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 May 21, 2014 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 May 23, 2014.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 May 26, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 15, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 17, 2014.
The Center appointed Luiz E. Montaury Pimenta as the sole panelist in this matter on June 27, 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 established in 1901 as Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel being a well-known institution in the field of banking and financial services.
The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks incorporating the term “Crédit Mutuel” before the “Institut Nationale de la Propriété Industrielle” (INPI), the French Office for trademark and patent registrations, including the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL registration no. 1475940 filed in 1988 and successively renewed, being currently valid.
The Complainant and its subsidiary, Euro-Information, are the owner of several domain names including the mark CREDIT MUTUEL, including the domain name . All domain names point to the official website of the Complainant.
The trademark CREDIT MUTUEL has been considered a well-known trademark by previous UDRP panels (see, e.g. Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel v. Philippe Marie,WIPO Case No. D2010-1513).
The disputed domain name was registered on March 7, 2014 and resolves to a website showing sponsored links to banking and financial services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL previously registered by the Complainant and also that the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.com” shall not be taken into account when comparing the disputed domain name with a previously registered trademark, as it is a technical and necessary part of the domain name with no distinguishing nor legal significance.
The Complainant asserts that the only difference between the trademark and the disputed domain name is the substitution of the letter “I” for the letter “E”, not being sufficient to prevent the domain name from being confusingly similar to the trademark. The Complainant argues that Internet users might accidentally or consciously capture in the URL the trademark with the letter “E” instead of the letter “I”.
The Complainant also argues that it is the owner of the domain name , highly similar to the disputed domain name.
The Complainant argues that it is not related in any way to the Respondent nor has authorized or licensed the registered trademark CREDIT MUTUEL to be used as a domain name or email address.
The Complainant affirms that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in a legitimate way since it is referring to the Complainant’s competitors’ websites, with targeted advertising offering banking and financial services. The Complainant states that these actions divert the Complainant’s customers and may hardly be linked with the exercise of any right or legitimate interest of the Respondent.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith since the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL is well known and has a reputation in the field of banking and financial services, being difficult to imagine that the Responded could have ignored it at the time it registered the confusingly similar domain name.
The Complainant also argues that is impossible that the Respondent was not aware of the existence of CREDIT MUTUEL when it registered the disputed domain name, given that the disputed domain name resolved to a parking webpage with several hyperlinks in the financial field, the core business of the Complainant. From the links contained, the Complainant affirms that the Respondent had the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark in mind at the time of registration and anticipated that consumers could type instead of , with the purpose of generating illegitimate profit from it.
The Complainant affirms that the Respondent is generating income through the hyperlinks placed in the parking page thanks to a pay-per-click system.
The Complainant asserts that previous UDRP panels have already determined that other respondents registered and used domain names composed of the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL in bad faith, and ordered the transfer of such domain names (see, e.g., Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel v. Philippe Marie, supra). B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL trademark. The Panel finds that the substitution of the letter “I” for the letter “E” is not sufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity.
The Panel, therefore, finds that the Complainant has established the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has alleged prima facie that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name, assertions that the Respondent has not rebutted.
With respect to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, there is no evidence that the Respondent, before any notice of the dispute, used the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
With respect to paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, there is no evidence that indicates that the Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
With respect to paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, the Respondent has not made or is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the second condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally registered the disputed domain name which reproduces the Complainant’s well-known trademark CREDIT MUTUEL in bad faith. It is highly unlikely that the Respondent did not know of the Complainant’s rights in the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL when it registered the disputed domain name.
The Complainant’s allegations of bad faith were not contested since the Respondent did not reply the Complaint. The evidence provided by the Complainant confirms that it had long been using its CREDIT MUTUEL trademark when the disputed domain name was registered.
The Panel finds that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark when it registered the disputed domain name.
Also, under the Policy, it is evidence of bad faith that “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 you web site or location”, Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv). The Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain name falls within the example of bad faith of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith and that Complainant has established the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. 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.
Luiz E. Montaury Pimenta
Sole Panelist
Date: July 11, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy