The Complainants are Crédit Industriel et Commercial S.A., France (the “First Complainant”) and Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, France (the “Second Complainant”), (together “the Complainants”), represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.
The Respondent is Xing Zhou, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names (“First Disputed Domain Name”), (“Second Disputed Domain Name”) and (“Third Disputed Domain Name”) (collectively “Disputed Domain Names”) are registered with DropC LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 3, 2019. On June 4, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Names. On June 4, 2019, 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 June 13, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 3, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 4, 2019.
The Center appointed Isabel Davies as the sole panelist in this matter on July 12, 2019. 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 First Complainant is France’s oldest deposit bank set up in 1859 and is the registered owner of a large number of trademarks (the “First Complainant’s Trademarks”) consisting of or including the sign CIC in many countries around the world dating from 1986.
The First Complainant uses its trademarks as domain names including , and .
The Second Complainant is the second French banking and insurance services group and is the registered owner of a large number of trademarks (the “Second Complainant’s Trademarks”) consisting of or including the words “Credit Mutuel” dating from 1988.
The Second Complainant uses its trademarks as domain names including , and .
The First and Second Complainants’ trademarks are collectively referred to as the “Complainants’ Trademarks”.
The First Disputed Domain Name was registered on April 7, 2019.
The Second Disputed Domain Name was registered on May 16, 2019.
The Third Disputed Domain Name was registered on April 4, 2019.
The Disputed Domain Names resolve to parking pages with pay-per-click links. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainants
The Disputed Domain Names are identical and/or confusingly similar to the Complainants’ Trademarks.
The Complainants claim that the First Disputed Domain Name is highly similar to the trademarks CIC and that the Second and Third Disputed Domain Names are highly similar to the trademarks CREDIT MUTUEL.
The Complainants state that the use of the generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”) “.com” or “.net” does not affect the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Names and the Complainants’ Trademarks.
They state that the trademarks CIC and CREDIT MUTUEL are identically reproduced in the Disputed Domain Names and that several prior UDRP panels have held that, when a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered trademark, that may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy and refer to Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson Sr.,WIPO Case No. D2000-1525.
They also state that the Disputed Domain Names contain the trademarks CIC and CREDIT MUTUEL with the descriptive wordings “suivi” and “group”, which could refer firstly to the proper monitoring by the First Complainant of its clients and their portfolio of financial goods/services and their accounts, and secondly to the Second Complainant which is commonly named “Credit Mutuel Group” with the letters “fr”, which could refer to the location of the Complainants’ head offices (in France).
The Complainants submit that the Respondent’s addition of these terms to the Complainants’ trademarks does not eliminate the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Names and the Complainants’ Trademarks, but suggests that the Disputed Domain Names relate to the Complainants and their financial goods and services.
The Complainants also submit that this is also the case with the hyphens in the Disputed Domain Names, the inclusion of which creates a link with the Complainants’ Trademarks as these words indicate to Internet users that the Disputed Domain Names will resolve to one of the Complainant’s official websites.
Furthermore, the Complainants submit, confusion in the public mind is accentuated by the notoriety of the CIC and CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks.
As a consequence, the Complainants submit that the Disputed Domain Names must be considered confusingly similar to the Complainants’ Trademarks.
The Complainants claim that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names.
They state that the Respondent is not one of the Complainants’ agents or employees, nor a licensee nor a subsidiary of the Complainants. The Respondent is not in any way related to the banking group and the Complainants have never given any authorization to the Respondent to use their trademarks.
The Respondent is not known under the trade name or corporate name “”, “” or “” and does not hold any such trademarks.
Lastly, the Complainants state that the Respondent has not committed any action showing that he has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names, because the Disputed Domain Names resolved to parking web pages with pay-per-click links to the Complainants’ competitors’ websites and this reinforces the risk of confusion with the Complainants’ activities in the Internet users’ mind.
The Complainants rely on a previous UDRP decision which has already recognized the lack of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the trademark CIC submitting that the same should be considered in this case. Namely, Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. Xing Zhou,WIPO Case No. D2019-0654.
Therefore, the Complainants submit that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names.
The Disputed Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
Bad Faith Registration
The Complainants state that the Complainants’ Trademarks are well and widely known in the field of banking and financial services and that it seems impossible that the Respondent was not aware of the banking group and of its trademarks CIC and CREDIT MUTUEL when it registered the Disputed Domain Names.
They submit that the act of reproducing the trademarks CIC and CREDIT MUTUEL with the descriptive wordings “suivi”, “group” and “fr”, is an indication of its monitoring of the financial portfolio of goods, services and accounts of the Complainants and its clients and location (in France), and is evidence of bad faith registration.
They refer to Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. Xing Zhou,WIPO Case No. D2019-0654.
They also refer to Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel v. Domain Privacy Service Fbo Registrant / Globallink, Germain Nzitat Nana,WIPO Case No. D2015-0944.
The Complainants claim that the Respondent was intentionally infringing the Complainants’ Trademarks at the time it registered the Disputed Domain Names incorporating the trademarks CIC and CREDIT MUTUEL being not descriptive or generic terms but the distinctive and dominant terms respectively in the Disputed Domain Names.
It is highly likely, the Complainants submit, that the Respondent chose such combination in order to misrepresent the position to Internet users and the Complainants’ clients, when they were trying to access the Complainants’ websites.
Secondly, the Complainants refer to a previous UDRP decision finding that the Respondent has registered in bad faith the domain name namely Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v Xing Zhou,WIPO Case No. D2019-0654.
The Complainants submit that this combination of facts constitutes registration in bad faith by the Respondent.
Bad Faith Use
The Complainants submit that the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith.
They state that the Disputed Domain Names resolve to parking websites with several links in French in the financial and banking field.
The Complainants state that the Respondent is therefore using the Disputed Domain Names to resolve to websites which provide links to competitors of the Complainants, like AXA, from the link “Crédit Mutuel Assurance auto” for the Third Disputed Domain Name, ING and FORTUNEO from the link “Ouvrir un compte bancaire” for the First Disputed Domain Name and from the link “Ouvrir un compte” for the Second Disputed Domain Name.
The Complainants therefore aver that the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Names in order to take advantage of the Complainants’ goodwill in order to divert Internet traffic to the Respondent’s websites by confusing the general public. This use also dilutes the value of the Complainants’ Trademarks and potentially generates unfair revenues for the Respondent.
They state that these web pages advertise a general offer to sell the Disputed Domain Names.
The Complainants cite decisions which considered the bad faith use of the respondents including Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. Xing Zhou,WIPO Case No. D2019-0654 regarding .
The Complainants state that the Respondent has activated the email servers of the Disputed Domain Names, which allows sending and receiving emails with any email address ending with “@”, “@” and “@”.
The Complainants suggest that such use, potentially resulting in fraudulent actions, while suggesting that they are linked to the Complainants, could not be perceived as a good faith use.
The Complainants refer to Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. Xing Zhou,WIPO Case No. D2019-0654.
The Complainants state that all these surrounding circumstances support their submission that the Respondent is not making any legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Names and that, many of these surrounding circumstances are interfering with the Complainants’ online presence.
This combination of circumstances, the Complainants submit, demonstrates that the Disputed Domain Names are used in bad faith.
The Complainants also state that, as banking groups, they have continually to face counterfeiting/phishing attempts. Therefore, the Complainants have to prevent new fakes of their websites and to protect their clients from counterfeiting and fraud.
In light of these factors the Complainants submit that the only conclusion that can be drawn by the Complainants is that the Respondent, knowing of the name, fame and reputation of the Complainants and their trademarks, has deliberately chosen to appropriate those names and reputations for what appear to be fraudulent purposes, notably by financially profiting from the renown of the Complainants.
The Complainants submit that these elements evidence that the Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Names in good faith.
The Complainants therefore submit that the registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names by the Respondent have been in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
The Policy establishes three elements, specified in paragraph 4(a) that must be established by the Complainant to obtain relief. These elements are:
(i) the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names;
(iii) the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
Each of these elements will be addressed below.
The Complainants must establish these elements even if the Respondent does not reply (see The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Lorna Kang,WIPO Case No. D2002-1064). However, under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel is entitled to draw such inferences as it considers appropriate from a party’s failure to comply with any provision of or requirement under the Rules, including the Respondent’s failure to file a Response.
In the absence of a Response, the Panel may also accept as true the factual allegations in the Complaint (see ThyssenKrupp USA, Inc. v. Richard Giardini,WIPO Case No. D2001-1425 (citing Talk City, Inc. v. Michael Robertson,WIPO Case No. D2000-0009)).
Paragraph 15 of the Rules provides that the Panel is to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted. As the proceeding is an administrative one, the Complainant bears the onus of proving its case on the balance of probabilities. The Complainant must therefore establish all three of the elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy on the balance of probabilities before a decision can be made to cancel or transfer the Disputed Domain Names. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In view of the Complainants’ Trademarks registered in many countries around the world dating back as far as 1986 and 1988 being included in the respective Disputed Domain Names, the Panel accepts that the use of the gTLDs “.com” or “.net” does not affect the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Names and the trademarks of the Complainants.
The Panel accepts that the Complainants’ Trademarks are identically reproduced in the relevant Disputed Domain Names and that several prior UDRP panels have held that, when a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered trademark that may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy.
The Panel accepts that the relevant Disputed Domain Names contain the Complainants’ Trademarks with the descriptive wordings “suivi”, “group” and “fr” (the location of the Complainants’ head offices in France), which do not eliminate the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Names and the Complainants’ Trademarks.
The Panel accepts that this is also the case with the hyphens in the Disputed Domain Names.
The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainants’ Trademarks. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel accepts that the Respondent is not one of the Complainants’ agents or employees, nor a licensee nor a subsidiary of the Complainants and that the Respondent is not in any way related to the banking group and that the Complainants have never given any authorization to the Respondent to use their trademarks.
The Panel accepts that the Respondent is not known under the trade name or corporate name “”, “” and “” and does not hold any such trademarks.
The Panel accepts that the Respondent has not committed any action showing that it has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names.
The Panel accepts that the Disputed Domain Names resolved to parking web pages with pay-per-click links to the Complainants’ competitors’ websites and reinforced the risk of confusion with the Complainants’ activities in the Internet users’ minds. The Panel notes that the Disputed Domain Names now resolve to different web pages with what appear to be pay-per-click links which do not eliminate the Complainants’ concerns.
A previous UDRP decision has already recognized the lack of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the trademark CIC.
In Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. Xing Zhou,WIPO Case No. D2019-0654 the panel recognized that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in that case.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel accepts that the Complainants’ Trademarks are well and widely known in the field of banking and financial services and considers it inconceivable that the Respondent was not aware of the banking group and of its trademarks CIC and CREDIT MUTUEL when it registered the Disputed Domain Names.
The Panel accepts that the act of reproducing the Complainants’ Trademarks with the descriptive wordings “suivi”, “group” and “fr”, is an indication of the Respondent monitoring of the financial portfolio of goods, services and accounts of the Complainants and their clients and location in France, and is evidence of bad faith registration.
In the case of Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. Xing Zhou,WIPO Case No. D2019-0654 the panel stated “The Complainant has trademark registrations in France and in EU and, in addition, the Complainant is well known for the CIC trademark that has been used by the Complainant since 1859 within the field of banking and financial services. The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark together with the generic word “support” in 2016 and has failed to provide any arguments or reasons in response to the Complaint supporting its choice in the Disputed Domain Name. It is not plausible that the Respondent would have been unaware of the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel therefore finds that the Disputed Domain Name was registered in bad faith, targeting the Complainant’s trademark.”
In Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel v. Domain Privacy Service Fbo Registrant / Globallink, Germain Nzitat Nana,WIPO Case No. D2015-0944 it is stated that “in this Panel’s view, it is safe to conclude that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its trademarks when he registered the disputed domain name, and that it is very likely that the Respondent intention was for the disputed domain name to trade on the renown of the Complainant and its trademark. Especially, if one takes into the account that two of the Complainant’s trademarks (CREDIT MUTUEL and CM) are included in the disputed domain name. The presence of the Complainant’s trademarks, and in particular CREDIT MUTUEL trademark in the disputed domain name certainly bears weight as a signal to the potential costumers and the disputed domain name clearly benefits from the same. Panels in earlier UDRP cases have found bad faith registration based in part on proof that the respondent “knew or should have known” about the existence of the complainant’s trademark and in particular in cases that involved well-known trademarks (see paragraph 3.4 of WIPO Overview 2.0). […] Given the above, the Panel determines that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used bad faith and that the Complainant fulfilled the third element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy”.
The Panel accepts that the Respondent was intentionally targeting the Complainants’ Trademark rights at the time it registered the Disputed Domain Names, the signs CIC and CREDIT MUTUEL being not descriptive or generic terms but the distinctive and dominant terms in the particular Disputed Domain Names.
The Panel accepts that the Respondent has chosen such combination in order to misrepresent the position to Internet users and the Complainants’ clients, when they are trying to access CIC’s and CREDIT MUTUEL’s websites.
The Panel refers to a previous decision Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v Xing Zhou,WIPO Case No. D2019-0654, in which it was found that the Respondent registered in bad faith the domain name .
The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names were registered in bad faith by the Respondent.
Turning to use in bad faith, the Panel accepts that the Disputed Domain Names resolve to parking websites with several links in French in the financial and banking field.
The Panel accepts that the Respondent was using the Disputed Domain Names to resolve to websites, which provide links to competitors of the Complainants, like AXA, from the link “Crédit Mutuel Assurance auto” for the Third Disputed Domain Name, ING and FORTUNEO from the link “Ouvrir un compte bancaire” for the First Disputed Domain Name and from the link “Ouvrir un compte” for the Second Disputed Domain Name.
The Panel accepts that the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Names in order to take advantage of the Complainants’ goodwill in order to divert Internet traffic to the Respondent’s websites by confusing the general public. This use also dilutes the value of the Complainants’ Trademarks and potentially generates unfair revenues for the Respondent.
The Panel notes that these web pages advertise a general offer to sell the Disputed Domain Names.
The Panel refers to Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. Xing Zhou,WIPO Case No. D2019-0654 which stated: “According to evidence provided by the Complainant, at the time of filing the Complaint the Disputed Domain Name was being used to divert Internet users to a parking webpage with links to competitors to the Complainant within the banking and financial field. The Panel also notes that the webpage advertises a general offer to sell the Disputed Domain Name. Registering and using a domain name that reproduces without authorization the complainant’s trademark, using such domain name for a webpage which promotes third party’s goods and services, diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to the respondent’s website dilutes the value of the complainant’s mark, potentially generates unfair revenues for the respondent and ultimately constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. […] For the above reasons the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.”
The Panel accepts that the Respondent has activated the email servers of the Disputed Domain Names, which allows sending and receiving emails with any email address ending by “@”, “@” and “@”.
The Panel accepts that such use potentially resulting in fraudulent actions, while suggesting to a link to the Complainants, could not be perceived as a good faith use.
The Panel refers to Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. Xing Zhou,WIPO Case No. D2019-0654 in which it was said that “The Panel also notes that the Complainant, a bank, is the kind of organization that has a high risk of being targeted directly or through its clients by fraudulent actions including phishing expeditions as the Complainant has contended. In light of the combined circumstances presented in this case the fact that the Respondent has configurated an email server to the Disputed Domain Name represents a real risk that the Respondent may be engaging in a fraudulent scheme, aiming to deceive the Complainant’s clients and the general public in to believing they are dealing with the Complainant. The use of the descriptive word “support” in the Disputed Domain Name enhances the likelihood of such confusion, since this indicates the services rendered by the Complainant to its client’s management of their bank accounts.”
The Panel accepts that all these surrounding circumstances indicate that the Respondent is not making any legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Names and that many of these surrounding circumstances are interfering with the Complainants’ online presence.
The Panel accepts that the Complainants, as banking groups, have continually to face counterfeiting/phishing attempts and that the Complainants have to prevent new imitations of their websites and have to protect their clients from counterfeiting and fraud.
The Panel finds that the Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Names in good faith.
The Panel therefore finds that both the registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names have been done in bad faith by the Respondent. 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 First Disputed Domain Name be transferred to the First Complainant, and that the Second Disputed Domain Name and the Third Disputed Domain Name be transferred to the Second Complainant.
Isabel Davies
Sole Panelist
Date: July 20, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy