The Complainant is the Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel of Paris, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.
The Respondent is Adam Sandling of Lyon, France. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , are registered with CSL Computer Service Langenbach GmbH dba J (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 28, 2016. On July 28, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On July 29, 2016, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 3, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 23, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 24, 2016.
The Center appointed Michel Vivant as the sole panelist in this matter on September 1, 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 Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel is the central body of the French banking group “Crédit Mutuel”. It owns a large number of trademarks consisting of or including the wording “CREDIT MUTUEL” in France and elsewhere, as a (semi-figurative) French trademark from July 8, 1988 or (nominative) European Union trade mark from October 20, 2011 (and also different domain names designed on the same basis).
The disputed domain names built on the wording “Crédit Mutuel” were registered by the Respondent on December 16, 2015, with the exception of the disputed domain name , which was registered on December 17, 2015. The disputed domain names do not resolve to any active website. . 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant underlines that it is a well-known banking group, and is the owner of “well-known” trademarks recognized as such by WIPO UDRP panels.
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to its trademark. It observes that the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL in its entirety and that the addition of generic Top-Level Domain is irrelevant in determining the possible similarity as is the addition of punctuation marks, such as hyphens. The Complainant adds that the inclusion of an additional terms such as “validation” or “verification” does not dispel the disputed domain names from being identical or confusingly similar but quite the opposite – it creates a false link with its trademarks.
The Complainant considers that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, because it is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business, has never received a license or an authorization to use its marks and has never been known under the wording “Crédit Mutuel”.
Lastly, the Complainant notices that the Respondent could not have ignored the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL and has registered the disputed domain names precisely because it knew the well-known character of the trademark. The Complainant advances also that the use of the domain names is bad faith use as far as the disputed domain names are inactive and might mislead the Internet users who can believe when they arrive on a holding page instead of a website that this is due to the Complainant, tarnishing in this way the Complainant’s image. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names all incorporate the whole of the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL, which typically is considered sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the first element.
It is well established that the gTLD is a non-pertinent element which generally must not be taken into consideration (the Complainant quotes Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. Jeongyong Cho,WIPO Case No. D2013-1263 in this regard).
It is also well established that the use or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens or spaces, does not alter the fact that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark (it is again a well‑established solution; see, for instance, two cases concerning the present Complainant, namely Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Eric Bilunov c/o Dynadot Privacy,WIPO Case No. DWS2014‑0001; Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Claitre Bonnat,WIPO Case No. D2016-0204).
Furthermore, the inclusion of additional terms as “validation” or “verification” does not dispel the disputed domain names from being identical or confusingly similar but, quite the opposite, creates a specific link with the trademark as far as such words are commonly used in connection with secured and trusted websites (see again Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Claitre Bonnat, supra).
Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, according to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has never been known under the name “Crédit Mutuel”. It is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business and has never received from it a license or an authorization to use its marks. The Panel finds that there is nothing in the present record to otherwise suggest rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent in the present case.
The Panel observes in addition that, if the Respondent had actually rights or legitimate interests in respect with the disputed domain names, it would have been easy for it not to be defaulting and to produce its arguments.
The Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, according to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The trademark CREDIT MUTUEL is a well-known trademark, as it has been already stated by several UDRP panels (see, for instance, Confédération nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. George Kershner,WIPO Case No. D2006-0248; Confédération Nationale du Credit Mutuel v. Philippe Marie,WIPO Case No. D2010-1513; or Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Claitre Bonnat, supra). Consequently, the Panel considers that the Respondent could not plausibly ignore the existence of the Complainant’s trademark at the time the disputed domain names were registered and thus that, according to a consistent jurisprudence of prior UDRP panels, the registrations must be judged as made in bad faith.
Considering the use of the disputed domain names, the Panel observes that the disputed domain names are inactive, directing only to holding pages, which dismiss all idea of good faith use. It is a fact that this “passive holding” of domain names, especially including a well-known trademark, without obvious legitimate purpose, has been condemned by different UDRP panels (see for instance, regarding again the Complainant, Confédération Nationale du Credit Mutuel v. Balley Arthur,WIPO Case No. D2015-2221).
Furthermore, the Panel wishes to note that, in the light of such a case of passive holding, the UDRP panel judged that “the bad faith behavior of the Respondent [] results clearly of [its] lack of response [] to the complaint, and to the inaccuracy and incoherence of [its] addresses” (Association Robert Mazars v. François Varin, Jerome Adrien, Laurent Bernard, Nicolas Mazars,WIPO Case No. D2014-0498).
All that leads the Panel to consider that the requirement of registration and use in bad faith is satisfied, according to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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.
Michel Vivant
Sole Panelist
Date: September 9, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy