The Complainant is Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel of Paris, France, represented by Meyer & Partenaires, France.
The Respondent is Houssem Brown of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 11, 2016. On February 12, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same date, 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 February 15, 2016 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 February 17, 2016.
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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 18, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 9, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 11, 2016.
The Center appointed Nuno Cruz as the sole panelist in this matter on March 18, 2016. 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 the political and central body of the Crédit Mutuel Banking Group, which is the second largest French banking and insurances services group, consisting of a network of more than 3,000 offices in France and providing services to approximately 12 million clients. The Complainant operates under a web portal accessible at “” and “”.
Specifically, “” offers online banking services to the Complainant’s clients who can manage their account online through this website.
The Complainant owns numerous CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks throughout the world, including:
- French trademark No. 1475940 CREDIT MUTUEL and design registered on July 8, 1988 in classes 35 and 36 and duly renewed;
- French trademark No. 1646012 CREDIT MUTUEL and design registered on November 20, 1990 in classes 16, 35, 36, 38 and 41 and duly renewed.
- International Registration No. 570182 CREDIT MUTUEL and design registered on May 17, 1991 in classes 16, 35, 36, 38 and 41 and duly renewed.
The Complainant also holds numerous domain names, such as , , , and .
The disputed domain name was registered on August 25, 2015. It is currently passively held, but in the past resolved to a website mimicking the Complainant’s official website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant states that its trademark CREDIT MUTUEL is well-known and is almost reproduced in the disputed domain name .
Furthermore, the Complainant highlights that the use of punctuation marks, such hyphens does not alter the fact that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark.
The Complainant adds that the omission of a letter of the trademark, e.g. the letter “e” in the disputed domains name, is a minor difference between the disputed domain name and the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL and therefore is not sufficient to distinguish them.
The Complainant adds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business. The Complainant adds that the Respondent is not one of its agents and that the Respondent is not authorized or licensed to use the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name .
The Complainant adds that the Respondent is not known under the wording “credit mutuel”.
Moreover, the Complainant states that the use of the disputed domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Lastly, the Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Complainant states that given the strong reputation and the widely known nature of the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark, at least in France, it is difficult to imagine that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s reputation and rights to its trademark when registering the disputed domain name.
The Complainant considers that the registration of a domain name, which differs from a well-known trademark only because of minor elements such as the addition of a hyphen and the omission of one letter, demonstrates the Respondent’s intention to select a domain name which is sufficiently similar to attract the Internet users.
In addition, the Complainant alleges that, given the similarity of the disputed domain name with the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL, there is no way in which the disputed domain name would have been registered and then used in good faith.
Moreover, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent has made efforts to hide his identity and to create a fictitious identity in order to prevent any action from the Complainant against him.
According to the Complainant, this combination of facts shows the bad faith registration of the disputed domain name.
Furthermore, the Complainant also states that the disputed domain name has been used in connection to a website that was mimicking the Complainant’s official website.
Therefore, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent is undoubtedly not making any good faith use of the disputed domain name and also that there is a strong suspicion of the Respondent using or intending to use the disputed domain name in a phishing scam.
The Complainant therefore requests the Panel to order 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
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the disputed domain name the Complainant must prove that:
(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 the CREDIT MUTUEL Mark, having trademark registrations for CREDIT MUTUEL in various countries around Europe, including France, where the CREDIT MUTUEL mark has been registered since at least 1988.
The Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL is substantially reproduced in the disputed domain name. The main difference between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks, the lack of the letter “e”, does not prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL trademark. The lack of the letter “e” does not alter the risk of confusion with the Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL trademark.
Furthermore, the likelihood of confusion is accentuated by the notoriety of the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to many registered trademarks in which the 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 noncommercial 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 be commonly known by the disputed domain name, is not a licensee or an agent of the Complainant, and is not in any way authorized to use the Complainant’s trademarks.
Furthermore, according to the Registrar’s verification, the disputed domain name was registered on August 25, 2015, long after the Complainant’s registration of its famous trademarks. The Respondent cannot claim to have been using a variation of the term “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.
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 services, it is difficult to imagine that the Respondent could have ignored it at the time of the registration. 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 contact details, which evidences the bad faith registration of the disputed domain name.
The choice of removing the first “e” in the disputed domain name can be evidence of bad faith use. The Respondent can use this practice in order to redirect Internet users who misspell “credit mutuel” to its website. It can be considered as a typosquatting act.
In this case, the Complainant’s trademarks have a strong reputation and are widely known, the Respondent chose not to participate in these proceedings and has not contested any of the allegations made by the Complainant, and did not provide any evidence whatsoever of any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or tarnish the Complainant’s trademark. Such passive attitude of the Respondent can be considered further evidence of bad faith. See also Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Shan Computers,WIPO Case No. D2000-0325; Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. (This Domain is For Sale) Joshuathan Investments, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2002-0787.
In these circumstances, where the disputed domain name is typosquatting a widely known mark, and the website to which it formerly resolved impersonated the Complainant’s website, the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of use 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.
Nuno Cruz
Sole Panelist
Date: March 31, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy