The Complainant is Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel of Paris, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.
The Respondent is Flow Prod of Alin, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 21, 2015. On May 21, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 21, 2015, 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 May 29, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 18, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 19, 2015.
The Center appointed Christiane Féral-Schuhl as the sole panelist in this matter on July 10, 2015. 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
According to the documentary evidence and contentions submitted, the Complainant is the second French banking and insurances services group.
The Complainant owns several trademark registrations composed of the term CREDIT MUTUEL across the world.
The Complainant owns, in particular, the following trademarks:
- French semi-figurative trademark n° 1475940, CREDIT MUTUEL, registered on July 8, 1988, in classes 35 and 36, renewed on August 27, 2008;
- French semi-figurative trademark n° 1646012, CREDIT MUTUEL, registered on November 20, 1990, in classes 16, 35, 36, 38 and 41, renewed on September 15, 2010;
- Nominative community trademark n° 9943135, CREDIT MUTUEL, registered on May 5, 2011, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42 and 45;
- Semi-figurative International trademark n° 570182, CREDIT MUTUEL, registered on May 17, 1991, in classes 16, 35, 36, 38 and 41, designating Benelux, Italy and Portugal, renewed on February 28, 2011.
The Complainant also owns and communicates on the Internet through various websites in order to present and to propose to Internet users its services and products.
The Complainant owns in particular the following domain names:
- , registered on September 13, 2001, and duly renewed;
- , registered on June 3, 2002, and duly renewed;
- , registered on August 10, 1995, and duly renewed;
- , registered on October 28, 1995, and duly renewed;
- , registered on October 3, 1996, and duly renewed.
The disputed domain name was registered on September 29, 2014.
The disputed domain name resolves to a pay-per-click (PPC) links website.
The Complainant tried to contact the Respondent to settle this matter amicably and found through further investigations that the Respondent’s identification data in the WhoIs record was fanciful. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. Indeed, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name reproduces entirely the CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.services”.
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL. The disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to the domain name used for years by the Complainant.
The Complainant adds that the addition of the gTLD suffix “.services” does not prevent a likelihood of confusion between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name in the minds of Internet users and that it has to be ignored in comparing the trademark to the disputed domain name.
The Complainant adds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant mentions that the Respondent is not related to the Complainant’s business and has never been known under the wording “Credit Mutuel”
The Complainant adds that the Respondent is not in any way affiliated with it, nor authorized or licensed to use the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark, or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the said trademark.
Finally, according to the Complainant, the fact that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name by using false identities in the WhoIs demonstrates that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. Indeed, the Complainant states that given the strong reputation of the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark, at least in France, it is impossible that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s rights to this trademark when registering the disputed domain name. And, the Complainant considers that the utilization of the gTLD “.services” by the Respondent may create a doubt in the mind of Internet users.
In addition, the Complainant highlights the fact that the disputed domain name was registered with fanciful contact details, and the Respondent chose a French identity. This demonstrates, according to the Complainant, that the Respondent has a connection with France and that it cannot ignore the existence of Complainant, which is well known in France.
The Complainant finally contends that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is used by the Respondent to divert Internet users to a webpage on which several hyperlinks are displayed, some of them consisting of results in the field of banking and credit services or insurance. Furthermore, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name will tarnish the reputation of the brand CREDIT MUTUEL: Internet users are expecting to find the Complainant’s website or one related to it, and not a PPC parking page. The fact that the disputed domain name is used for a parking program demonstrates that it is used to divert Internet users and to direct them to a webpage providing click-through revenues to the Respondent.
Moreover, Internet users seeking the Complainant’s services or information may unwittingly end up at the website of a competitor of the Complainant. The Complainant claims that such use disrupts its business and is evidence of bad faith registration and use.
Finally, the Complainant points out that, as a banking group, it has to prevent a fake of its website and to protect in the meantime its clients from counterfeiting and fraud.
The Complainant therefore requests the Panel find that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to be entitled to a transfer of the disputed domain name, the Complainant shall prove 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;
(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 Panel observes that the Complainant has provided evidence that it has rights in the CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks, and that the Complainant’s trademarks and domain names are still in force.
In this case, the disputed domain name is composed of the distinctive element “creditmutuel”, which is the exact reproduction of the CREDIT MUTUEL protected trademark of the Complainant, to which is added the gTLD suffix “.services”.
The Panel concurs with the opinion of several prior UDRP panel decisions which have held that, when a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered trademark, that may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy (see e.g., Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., Roche Products Limited v.Vladimir Ulyanov,WIPO Case No. D2011-1474; Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,WIPO Case No. D2000-1525; Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. ,WIPO Case No. D2002-0615; Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. mei xudong,WIPO Case No. D2013-0150; RapidShare AG, Christian Schmid v. InvisibleR, Domain Admin,WIPO Case No. D2010-1059).
As a consequence, regarding the disputed domain name , the Panel finds that the addition of the gTLD suffix “.services” to the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL is not sufficient to exclude confusing similarity.
In view of the above, the Panel considers that the Complainant has proved that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Policy outlines circumstances (Policy, paragraph 4(c)), that if found by the Panel to be proved, shall demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name. These circumstances are:
(i) before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if he has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
According to prior UDRP panel decisions, it is sufficient that the Complainant shows a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to shift the burden of production to the Respondent (see Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent has no authorization or license from the Complainant to use the Complainant’s trademarks, that there is no business relationship existing between the Complainant and the Respondent, that the Respondent’s name is not composed of the name “Credit Mutuel” and that it is not itself commonly known under the disputed domain name.
The Panel also considers that, as the disputed domain name redirects to a parking page with PPC links related to the Complainant’s field of business, there is no bona fide offering of goods and services by the Respondent.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions and thus has provided no evidence of the circumstances specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, nor any circumstances giving rise to a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
In view of the above, the Panel considers that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Policy outlines circumstances (Policy, paragraph 4(b)) which, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. These circumstances are:
(i) circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or has acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed 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 the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or
(ii) the Respondent has registered the disputed 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 the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website 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 the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location.
The Complainant contends that it tried to contact the Respondent but it found out that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with fanciful contact details. Based on this observation, which is not contested by the Respondent, it appears to the Panel that the Respondent has intentionally registered the disputed domain name under a false identity.
Moreover, the disputed domain name is connected to a parking program containing some links redirecting Internet users to websites of some competitors of the Complainant providing click through revenues to the Respondent. According to the Policy, this practice is a circumstance of registration in bad faith as per paragraph 4(b)(iv).
Furthermore, bad faith may be found where the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant’s trademark rights and, nevertheless registered a domain name in which it had no right or legitimate interests. Thus, numerous UDRP panel decisions have made a finding of bad faith where a complainant’s trademark was shown to be well-known or in wide use at the time of registration of the domain name (see LEGO Juris A/S v. store24hour,WIPO Case No. D2013-0091; Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie, L’Oréal v. 10 Selling,WIPO Case No. D2008-0226; The Gap, Inc. v. Deng Youqian,WIPO Case No. D2009-0113).
Taking into account the reputation of the Complainant and the fact that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking program containing links to websites of competitors of the Complainant, the Panel finds that in all likelihood the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the time the disputed domain name was registered and deliberately registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Moreover, the Panel concurs with UDRP decisions which consider that a deliberate concealment of identity and contact information may be a further indication of registration in bad faith (see Schering Corporation v. Name Redacted,WIPO Case No. D2012-0729; TTT Moneycorp Limited. v. Diverse Communications,WIPO Case No. D2001-0725). In this case, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with fanciful contact details, and the Panel considers this likely to be in order to hide its identity and prevent the Complainant from contacting it.
Therefore, for all the above mentioned reasons, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Moreover, the Respondent has provided no evidence of any actual or any contemplated good faith use by it of the disputed domain name. All aforementioned circumstances confirm to the Panel that the disputed domain name is used in bad faith. In particular, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for a parking program in order to divert Internet users and to direct them to a webpage providing click-through revenues to the Respondent.
Thus, in view of the above, 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.
Christiane Féral-Schuhl
Sole Panelist
Date: July 24, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy