The Complainant is Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel of Paris, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.
The Respondent is Whois Agent, Domain Protection Services, Inc. of Denver, Colorado, United States of America / Godwine Papin of Cotonou, Benin. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with N, Inc. (N LLC) (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 26, 2018. On July 26, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 26, 2018, 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 July 27, 2018 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 August 1, 2018.
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 August 3, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 23, 2018. On August 6, 2018, the Respondent sent email communications to the Center regarding a possible settlement. The Center did not receive a request for suspension from the Complainant and informed the Parties that the proceeding would continue. The Respondent did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties that would proceed to panel appointment on August 24, 2018. The Center received further email communications from the Respondent on August 24, 2018, and August 30, 2018.
On August 30, 2018, the Complainant requested the suspension of the proceeding for a period of 30 days, for the purpose of engaging in settlement discussions with the Respondent. The Notification of Suspension was sent by the Center to the Parties on August 30, 2018. On September 21, 2018, the Complainant informed the Center that the Parties were not able to settle the dispute and requested the reinstitution of the Proceeding. The Center notified the Parties of the Reinstitution of Proceeding on September 21, 2018.
The Center appointed Kiyoshi Tsuru as the sole panelist in this matter on September 25, 2018. 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 for the banking group Credit Mutuel. Credit Mutuel is the second French banking and insurance services group. It has provided its services to 12 million clients for more than a century, and it offers online financial services.
The Complainant owns, among others, the following trademark registrations:
Trademark
Registration Number
Filing Date
Class
Jurisdiction
CREDIT MUTUEL
1475940
July 8, 1988
35 and 36
France
CREDIT MUTUEL
1646012
November 20, 1990
16, 35, 36, 38 and 41
France
CREDIT MUTUEL
9943135
May 5, 2011
9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, 45
European Union
CREDIT MUTUEL
570182
May 17, 1991
16, 35, 36, 38 and 41
International trademark (designation in Benelux, Italy and Portugal)
The Complainant owns directly or through its subsidiary EURO INFORMATION, the following domain names:
- registered on September 13, 2001;
- registered on June 3, 2002;
- registered on August 10, 1995;
- registered on October 28 1995;
- registered on October 3, 1996;
The disputed domain name was registered on July 9, 2018. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant states the following: (i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
That the Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations worldwide. That the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark CREDIT MUTUEL, which has been recognized as well-known in other decisions issued under the Policy, because it incorporates said trademark in its entirety.
That the inclusion of the additional term “universel” does not prevent the disputed domain name from being identical or confusingly similar to its trademark CREDIT MUTUEL, but quite the opposite, creates a specific link with said trademark, as this term could refer to one of the Complainant’s services/products “le chèque emploi service universel” (worker’s money voucher).
That the relevant part of the disputed domain name is the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL, which is why (notwithstanding the inclusion of the term “universel”) the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark is evident. (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
That the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. That the Respondent is not in any way related to the Complainant’s banking group, and that the Complainant has never given him any authorization to use its trademark CREDIT MUTUEL.
That the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. >
That the Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide and noncommercial offering of goods and/or services.
That the website to which the disputed domain name resolved offered online banking loans, a fact that reinforces the risk of confusion in the minds of Internet consumers. (iii) Registration and Use of Bad Faith
That the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL is well and widely known in the field of banking and financial service.
That it therefore seems impossible to conceive that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s banking group and its trademark CREDIT MUTUEL at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.
That the act of reproducing the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL together with the French term “universel” as an indication of the financial goods or services that the Complainant renders or offers online through its official web site (namely the worker’s money voucher) is an evidence of bad faith registration per se.
That the Respondent had knowledge of the existence of the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL, and that he knew that he was infringing said trademark, at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.
That since the sign CREDIT MUTUEL is not a descriptive or generic term, but on the contrary the distinctive and dominant term in the disputed domain name, it is highly likely that the Respondent has chosen the disputed domain name in order to give a real and concrete meaning for Internet users and the Complainant’s clients on the web, when trying to access the Complainant’s web site.
That the disputed domain name resolves to a website that displays the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL and offers online financial loans and financing solutions, suggesting a link between the Complainant and the Respondent.
That the Respondent could use the website to which the disputed domain name has resolved, to collect personal data as the name or the email address of individuals persons for potentially using them in a fraudulent way, such as phishing attempts, in the future.
That the Respondent has activated the email servers related to the disputed domain name, which allows it to send and receiving emails from an address that incorporates the disputed domain name , such as the email address “[…]@”, which it already uses.
That there is a risk that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to carry out fraudulent actions by representing to be a subsidiary of the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
To succeed in this Complaint, the Complainant must prove that the three elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been met:
(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 with respect to the disputed domain name; and
(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith
As the Respondent has failed to submit a Response to the Complainant’s contentions, the Panel may choose to accept as true all of the reasonable allegations of the Complainant (see Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. v. null John Zuccarini, Country Walk,WIPO Case No. D2002-0487). A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL because it incorporates said trademark in its entirety.
Previous UDRP panel has determined that the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL is well known under article 6 bis of the Paris Convention, and under the Policy (see Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel v. Philippe Marie,WIPO Case No. D2010-1513). This Panel agrees.
The Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. The addition of the term “universel” to the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity among Internet users. On the contrary, the Complainant has proven to offer a service/product called “le chèque emploi service universel” (worker’s money voucher).
The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is immaterial for the purpose of assessing confusing similarity (see SAP SE v. Mohammed Aziz Sheikh, Sapteq Global Consulting Services,WIPO Case No. D2015-0565; and Bentley Motors Limited v. Domain Admin / Kyle Rocheleau, Privacy Hero Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2014-1919).
Therefore, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL. The first element of the Policy has been met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets forth the following examples as circumstances where a respondent may have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name:
(i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the use by the respondent 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) the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is 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 Complainant has submitted evidence showing that it has trademark rights for CREDIT MUTUEL in different jurisdictions.
The Complainant argued that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL in any way (see Beyoncé Knowles v. Sonny Ahuja,WIPO Case No. D2010-1431; Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. IQ Management Corporation,WIPO Case No. D2004-0272).
The evidence in the case file proves that the disputed domain name resolved to a website conspicuously displaying the sign CREDIT MUTUEL UNIVERSEL, with a look and feel that clearly resembles that of a financial institution. In this illegitimate website, there were several links related to offerings of personal credits, mortgages, investments, and the like. One of the printouts of the Respondent’s alleged website, submitted by the Complainant, comprises a list of documents and information that is requested therein, from potential clients, including personal data and financial information related to the monthly income, of a given Internet user, which said user would voluntarily and in good faith supply to the Respondent (see CNH Industrial America LLC c. Karla Rodríguez, Correo,WIPO Case No. D2017-1563).
The Respondent’s conduct does not appear to be coincidental. It is a deliberate act of impersonation aimed at defrauding Internet users by making them believe that they can obtain a credit by submitting their personal information to the web site to which the disputed domain name resolves.
This fact alone is enough to find that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The case is aggravated as a result of the well-known status of the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL, especially taking into account that the disputed domain name has been used to deceive Internet users in a fraudulent scheme.
The second element of the Policy has been met. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
According to Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be evidence of registration and use in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or the respondent has 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) 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.
Given the well-known nature of the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL, and considering the content that has been made available on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, it is more likely than not that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name, and there is also a high risk that Internet users would mistakenly associate the disputed domain name to the Complainant and therefore be deceived as to the source, affiliation, or authenticity of the web site to which the disputed domain name resolves.
The fact that the disputed domain name is composed by the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL and the term “universel” can increase the risk of confusion among Internet users, both in relation to the abovementioned money voucher, and in relation to the Complainant and its activities in general. It should be taken into account that the term “universal” is widely used in the finance and the insurance sectors, and that the incorporation of said term in the disputed domain name increases the risk of confusion (see Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Claitre Bonnat,WIPO Case No. 2016-0204; Crédit Industriel et Commercial v. Hola Domains, Hola Dominios Limitada,WIPO Case No. D2017-1457; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walsucks & Walmarket Puerto Rico,WIPO Case No. D2000-0477; and Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. v. Arena International Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2011-0203).
In addition to a typical finding of traffic diversion for profit under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy (see Alpine Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Walter Alvarez,WIPO Case No. D2007-1082; Owens Corning v. NA,WIPO Case No. D2007-1143), the Panel finds that the Respondent’s activities may reasonably be considered as an impersonation of the Complainant, and that the Respondent’s activities constitute a disruption to the Complainant, and a severe risk to Internet users and their personal data (see SVB Financial Group v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Citizen Global Cargo,WIPO Case No. D2018-0398; Haas Food Equipment GmbH v. Usman ABD, Usmandel,WIPO Case No. D2015-0285).
Previous UDRP panels have decided that phishing schemes constitute bad faith use (DeLaval Holding AB v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy LLL / Craig Kennedy,WIPO Case No. D2015-2135; Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A. v. Harry Bradley, Harry B. Holdings Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2016-0616). There is no doubt that the Respondent has acted in bad faith in the present case.
The third element of the Policy has been met. 7. Decision
For all 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.
Kiyoshi Tsuru
Sole Panelist
Date: October 9, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy