The Complainant is Confédération nationale du crédit mutuel of Paris, France, represented by Meyer & Partenaires, France.
The Respondent is Achi camphotoa of Douala, Cameroon. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural history
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 4, 2017. On May 4, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 5, 2017, 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 May 16, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 5, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 9, 2017.
The Center appointed Cherise Valles as the sole panelist in this matter on June 21, 2017. 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
Confédération nationale du crédit mutuel is the central body for the banking group, Crédit Mutuel. Crédit Mutuel is the second-largest French banking and insurance services group, which has been established for over a hundred years and provides its services to 12 million clients. Crédit Mutuel has a network of 3178 offices in France, covering 18 regional federations. Crédit Mutuel provides banking services to both individuals and businesses.
Confédération nationale du crédit mutuel operates a web portal under the URLs “” and “”, which explains its offline and online services and provides information to the public about its banking services. Specifically, the website “” offers online banking services to Crédit Mutuel’s clients, so they can manage their account(s) online.
Confédération nationale du crédit mutuel is the registered owner of a multiple trademark registrations in France and abroad that consist of, or include, the words “Crédit Mutuel”:
- CREDIT MUTUEL, French semi-figurative trademark No. 1475940 of July 8,1988, in classes 35 and 36 of the Nice Agreement, renewed on August 27, 2008;
- CREDIT MUTUEL, French semi-figurative trademark No. 1646012 of November 20, 1990 in classes 16, 35, 36, 38 (Internet services) and 41 of the Nice Agreement, renewed on September 15, 2010;
- CREDIT MUTUEL, nominative European Union Trademark No. 9943135 of October 20, 2011 in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, 45 of the Nice Agreement;
- CREDIT MUTUEL semi-figurative International trademark No. 570182 of May 17, 1991 in classes 16, 35, 36, 38 and 41 of the Nice Agreement, designating Benelux, Italy and Portugal, renewed on February 28, 2011;
- CM, French verbal trademark No.3101596 of May 16, 2001 in class 36;
- CM-CIC, figurative Community trademark No. 3644366 of February 3, 2004 in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42 of the Nice Agreement.
The name CREDIT MUTUEL is also protected as gTLD and ccTLD domain names.
Thus, Confédération nationale du crédit mutuel and its IT-dedicated subsidiary, Euro Information, are respectively the holders of several domain names including, inter alia:
- registered on September 13, 2001 and duly renewed since;
- registered on June 3, 2002 and duly renewed since;
- registered on August 10, 1995 and duly renewed since;
- registered on October 28 1995 and duly renewed since;
- registered on October 3, 1996 and duly renewed since.
The disputed domain name was registered on February 6, 2017.
All the above-mentioned trademarks and domain names were registered before the registration of the disputed domain name. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant asserts that each of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and the corresponding provisions in the Rules have been satisfied. In particular, the Complainant asserts that:
- The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, namely, “Crédit Mutuel” and “CM”, in light of the fact that it wholly incorporates the Complainant’s mark.
- The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has never licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademarks or to register any domain name that included its trademarks.
- The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The mere fact of registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar or identical to a famous trademark by an entity that has no relationship to that mark is itself evidence of bad faith registration and use.
The Complainant requests the Panel to issue a decision finding that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant, in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and findings
The Policy provides specific remedies to trademark owners against registrants of domain names where the owner of the mark (i.e., a complainant) establishes each of the following elements:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights;
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant has the burden of proof in establishing each of these elements.
The Respondent has failed to file a response in this proceeding and is therefore in default and the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the available evidence submitted by the Complainant in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 14(b). A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must have trademark rights and the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel notes that the disputed domain name wholly reproduces the Complainant’s registered trademarks of CREDIT MUTUEL and CM. The combination of two of the Complainant’s trademarks in the disputed domain name enhances the risk of confusion in the mind of the public. Several URDP panels have found that such a combination of trademarks is inconsistent with UDRP principles. See, for example, Bayerische Motoren Werke AG and Williams Grand Prix Engineering Limited v. Neil Malkhandi,WIPO Case No. D2000-1172.
Furthermore, the addition of the hyphen between the terms “Credit Mutuel” and “CM” in the disputed domain name does not serve to reduce the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks. The addition of the hyphen in the disputed domain name is insignificant and does little to avoid confusing similarity of the disputed domain name with the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark of the Complainant. See, for example, Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel v. Domain Privacy Service Fbo Registrant / Globallink, Germain Nzitat Nana, WIPO Case No. D2015-0944.
Third, the addition of the letter “s” in the term “creditsmutuel” in the disputed domain name does not reduce the likelihood of confusion. See, for example, Crédit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. Moniker Privacy Services / Charlie Kalopungi,WIPO Case No. D2010-1914, in which the Panel noted that the presence of an additional letter “l” in the disputed domain name meant that, although it was not identical to the Complainant’s trademarks, it was nevertheless “confusingly similar”.
In the light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The burden of proof is on the Complainant to establish that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Under the UDRP, if a prima facie case is established by the Complainant, then the burden of production of evidence shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy enumerates three non-exclusive ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name (with “you” referring to the respondent):
“[a]ny of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii):
(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.”
The Respondent did not submit a response or attempt to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Panel draws adverse inferences from this failure, where appropriate, in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 14(b).
Previous UDRP panels have established that in order to shift the burden of production to the respondent, it is sufficient for the complainant to make a prima facie showing that the respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Complainant submits that the Respondent is not an agent or employee, a licensee or subsidiary of the Complainant and that the Respondent is no any way related to the banking group and the Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to use its trademark. There is no evidence on the record that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name and has any registered trademarks or trade names corresponding to the disputed domain name. The foregoing suggests a lack of rights or legitimate interest by the Respondent in the disputed domain name.
Previous UDRP panels have found that in the absence of any license or permission from the complainant to use such a widely-known trademark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name can reasonably be claimed. See, for example, LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, A Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,WIPO Case No. D2010-0138.
In the light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established an unrebutted prima facie case and concludes that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be considered evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant (the owner of the trademark or service mark) or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name;
(ii) the respondent has 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 the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its 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 its website or location.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has engaged in both bad faith registration and bad faith use.
The Complainant’s trademarks CREDIT MUTUEL and CM are widely known in the field of banking and financial services. It is more than likely that the Respondent was aware of the banking group and of its trademarks CREDIT MUTUEL and CM when it registered the disputed domain name. See, for example, Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Philippe Marie, WIPO Case No. D2010-1513. Furthermore, the Respondent appears to be using a false name in order to conceal its true identity.
Several factors confirm that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith: the Respondent completely reproduces the CREDIT MUTUEL and CM trademarks in the disputed domain name , which is then redirected to an “Error 404 webpage”; the “non-use” of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith use in the form of passive holding; the replication of the Complainant’s strong and well-established trademarks in the disputed domain name, the absence of any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use by the Respondent in the domain name, and the fact that the Respondent has taken active steps to conceal its true identity. See, for example, Accor, So Luxury HMC v. Youness Itsmail,WIPO Case No. D2015-0287.
In the light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is satisfied. 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.
Cherise Valles
Sole Panelist
Date: July 7, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy