The Complainant is Confédération nationale du crédit mutuel of Paris, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains by Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States of America / Hun Romain of Bry Sur Marne, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on February 29, 2016. On February 29, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 29, 2016, 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, 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 March 7, 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 March 9, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 29, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on March 30, 2016.
The Center appointed Christophe Caron as the sole panelist in this matter on April 14, 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, Confédération nationale du crédit mutuel, is the political and central body for the banking group Crédit Mutuel. Crédit Mutuel is the second largest French banking and insurance services group.
The Complainant operates a web portal at the websites "" and "", dedicated to its off- and online services and providing information to the public about its banking services.
The Complainant is, notably, the owner of the following trademarks:
- French semi-figurative trademark CREDIT MUTUEL No 1475940 dated of July 8, 1988, in classes 35 and 36 of 1957 Nice Agreement, renewed on August 27, 2008
- French semi-figurative trademark CREDIT MUTUEL No 1646012 dated of November 20, 1990 in classes 16, 35, 36, 38 (Internet services) and 41 of Nice Agreement, renewed on September 15, 2010;
- European Union trademark CREDIT MUTUEL No 9943135 dated of May 5, 2011 in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, 45 of Nice Agreement;
- Semi-figurative International trademark CREDIT MUTUEL No 570182 of May 17, 1991 in classes 16, 35, 36, 38 and 41 of Nice Agreement, designating Benelux, Italy and Portugal, renewed on February 28, 2011.
In addition, the Complainant operates domain names reflecting its trademarks:
- registered on September 13, 2001 and duly renewed since then;
- registered on June 3, 2002 and duly renewed since then;
- registered on August 10, 1995 and duly renewed since then;
- registered on October 28, 1995 and duly renewed since then;
- registered on October 3, 1996 and duly renewed since then.
The disputed domain name was registered on June 19, 2014, and is passively held. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant makes the following submissions and arguments.
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL because its trademark is entirely reproduced in the disputed domain name. The suffix "enligne" is very commonly used on the Internet in connection with services provided online, including banking services. Internet users would perceive this suffix as being used in connection with the Complainant, as this latter is known for offering its banking services through the Internet. Accordingly, the disputed domain name creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark.
According to the Complainant, the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name. Indeed, the Respondent is not in any way affiliated with the Complainant, nor has the Complainant authorized or licensed the Respondent to use its trademarks. Furthermore, the Respondent is not currently and has never been known under the name "Credit Mutuel".
Finally, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of the reputation and the well-known status of the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL, in the field of banking and financial services, the Complainant claims that the Respondent could not have ignored the reputation of the brand CREDIT MUTUEL at the time it registered the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent wanted to refer to the Complainant. The descriptive wording "enligne" which has been combined with the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL in the disputed domain name is a wording that would strengthen French and other Internet users' belief that they are dealing with the Complainant's website. Finally, the Complainant explains that the Respondent has been using a WhoIs proxy service to keep private his personal identity which might confirm a fraudulent intention.
The Complainant considers that the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith use. Although the current visible use of the disputed domain name is a standard error page, the Complainant states that the passive holding by the Respondent must be considered as use in bad faith. In addition, the Complainant underlines that email servers have been activated for the disputed domain name which means that the Respondent could use any email address with the "@" suffix for commercial emailing, spamming, or phishing purposes, to the detriment of the Complainant.
Consequently, the Complainant states that the Respondent should be considered to have registered and to be using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
For all of the above reasons, the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of 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; 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 French, European Union and international trademark registrations for CREDIT MUTUEL.
The trademark CREDIT MUTUEL is entirely reproduced in the disputed domain name. Furthermore, this Panel believes that since the term "Credit Mutuel" is included in the disputed domain name, the likelihood of confusion is accentuated by the notoriety of the Complainant's CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks. In this Panel's opinion, the addition of the suffix "enligne" in the disputed domain name is not sufficient to avoid a likelihood of confusion and, on the contrary, leads the public to believe that the Complainant is the owner of the disputed domain name.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the 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
This Panel is satisfied that the Respondent does not appear to have been commonly known by the disputed domain name, he is not a licensee or an agent of the Complainant, nor is he in any way authorized to use the Complainant's trademarks.
Furthermore, according to the Registrar's verification, the disputed domain name was registered in June 2014, many years after the Complainant's registration of its famous trademarks. The Respondent cannot claim to have been using the term "Credit Mutuel", without being aware of the Complainant's rights.
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
Taking into account the reputation of the trademarks CREDIT MUTUEL in the field of the banking and commercial services, the Respondent could not have ignored it at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, there is no doubt that the Respondent wanted to refer to the Complainant in registering the disputed domain name: the descriptive wording "enligne" which has been combined with the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL in the disputed domain name is a wording that would strengthen French and other Internet users' belief that they are dealing with the Complainant's website. The Panel therefore considers that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith.
The Panel notes that the current visible use of the disputed domain name is a standard error page. However, passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith use. Furthermore, email servers have been activated for the disputed domain name and it is hard to imagine in which legitimate way such emails would be used. On the contrary, the Respondent could use any email address with the "@" suffix for commercial emailing, spamming, or phishing purposes.
The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is made out. 7. Decision
In accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel finds that:
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
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.
Christophe Caron
Sole Panelist
Date: April 22, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy