The Complainant is Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, France, represented by Meyer & Partenaires, France.
The Respondent is Moh Med, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name () is registered with 1&1 IONOS Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 14, 2019. On August 14, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 19, 2019, 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 Complainant on August 20, 2019 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 22, 2019.
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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 26, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 15, 2019. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Complainant of Respondent’s default on September 20, 2019.
The Center appointed Nathalie Dreyfus as the sole panelist in this matter on September 24, 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
Complainant is Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, the political and central body for the banking group Crédit Mutuel. Crédit Mutuel is the second largest French banking and insurance services group.
Complainant has trademark rights in the CREDIT MUTUEL sign, including:
- French trademark n°1475940 of July 8, 1988, in classes 35 and 36;
- French trademark n°1646012 of November 20, 1990 in classes 16, 35, 36, 38 and 41;
- European Union trademark n°9943135 of May 5, 2011 in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42 and 45; and
- International trademark n°570182 of May 17, 1991 in classes 16, 35, 36, 38 and 41, designating Benelux, Italy, and Portugal.
Complainant is the holder of many domain names (through its IT-dedicated subsidiary Euro Information) including, inter alia, registered on September 13, 2001; registered on June 3, 2002; registered on August 10, 1995; registered on October 28, 1995 and registered on October 3, 1996, all duly renewed.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 14, 2019. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
First, Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its CREDIT MUTUEL trademark.
Indeed, Complainant states that the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark is almost entirely reproduced in the disputed domain name. Complainant further states that only the radical of the domain name must be analyzed. Complainant also argues that the radical “crédit-mut-message” consists of the diminutive of the words “crédit mutuel”, followed by the word “message”, and that it thus imitates its CREDIT MUTUEL trademark Complainant further argues that the diminutive “credit mut” is commonly used by its clients to refer to the “Credit Mutuel”.
Complainant states that the “crédit mut” term constitutes the distinctive and dominant element of the disputed domain name and highly imitates the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark, and that a use of a trademark is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or similar to a trademark.
Complainant then argues that the term “message”, added to “crédit-mut”, refers to a message it could have sent to its clients, and that this term is thus very evocative of Complainant, and generates a risk of confusion with its trademarks and trade names. Complainant considers that the suppression of the final letters “-uel”, and the addition of the generic term “message”, do not eliminate the risk of confusion.
Complainant finally argues that, because of the risk of confusion, the public will make a link between the disputed domain name and Complainant, and will think that Complainant is the owner of the disputed domain name or that gave its consent for its registration.
Second, Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Even though Respondent has not been identified, Complainant states that it has no rights or legitimate interests since Complainant has not given a license or an authorization to anyone to register the disputed domain name. Complainant further argues that there is no known relationship between Complainant and Respondent.
Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that it does not own either trademarks similar to the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark or incorporating it.
Complainant further argues that the disputed domain name is pointing to an inactive website, so the use of the disputed domain name is neither a bona fide offering nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Finally, Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Complainant argues that its trademarks are well-known trademarks and, in this consideration, Respondent could not have ignored the reputation of the trademarks CREDIT MUTUEL when registering the disputed domain name, but that it, instead, precisely registered the disputed domain name because of the well-known character of the CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks.
Complainant further argues that the addition of the term “message” demonstrates that Respondent was aware of Complainant activities and services. Also, the common use of the expression “crédit mut” by Complainant’s own customers may strengthen Internet users’ belief that Respondent is somehow dealing with Complainant.
Complainant considers that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with intent of deliberate deceit, and thus did so in bad faith.
Furthermore, Complainant argues that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because it does not resolve to any active website. This use constitutes passive holding so there is no serious intent to use it for offering goods and services or promoting a noncommercial cause. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name, Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements are present:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules provides that “[a] Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. Paragraphs 10(b) and 10(d) also provide that “[i]n all cases, the Panel shall ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case” and that “[t]he Panel shall determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence”.
Furthermore, paragraph 14(b) provides that “[i]f a Party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, these Rules or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate”.
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. Respondent’s failure to respond, however, does not automatically result in a decision in favor of Complainant, although the Panel is entitled to draw appropriate inferences therefrom, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. See section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
Taking the foregoing provisions into consideration the Panel finds as follows: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
First, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) is generally disregarded under the confusing similarity test, as it is a functional element. See section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Thus, the Panel notes that “.com” should not be taken into account when comparing the disputed domain name with Complainant’s trademarks as it is only a technical and necessary part of the disputed domain name (see Figaro Classifieds v. Bernard Elkeslassy,WIPO Case No. D2016-2234).
Second, Complainant states that the disputed domain name is highly confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks CREDIT MUTUEL. Previous UDRP panels stated that “The difference, omission of the letters “al,” is not sufficient to distinguish the recognizable aspects of the relevant mark.” (See Educational Testing Service v. Domain Hostmaster, Customer ID: 04460249369481 / Lisa Katz, Domain Protection LLC,WIPO Case No. D2017-1516).
Furthermore, the addition of the dictionary term “message” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity (See Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / CREDIT MUTUEL,WIPO Case No. D2019-1506).
The Panel thus considers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks.
Complainant has therefore satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires a complainant to demonstrate that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant is required to establish a prima facie case that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to Respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If, however, Respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, a Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
First, Complainant claims that it has not granted authorization to Respondent to make any use of Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks, and that Respondent is not related in any way to Complainant’s business.
Second, Respondent did not answer to Complainant’s contentions. According to a previous WIPO UDRP decision, this lack of response can be indicative of Respondent’s lack of interests (see Pomellato S.p.A v. Richard Tonetti, WIPO Case No. D2000-0493: “non-response is indicative of a lack of interests inconsistent with an attitude of ownership and a belief in the lawfulness of one’s own rights”).
Finally, the Panel finds that Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name and thus cannot claim a bona fide offering of goods and services.
The Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant has therefore satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires Complainant to demonstrate that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. Indeed, Respondent could not have ignored Complainant’s trademarks since the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark has been recognized as a well-known trademark.
Furthermore, the addition of the term “message” to the terms “credit-mut”, which is directly referring to Complainant’s services and to CREDIT MUTUEL trademark, demonstrates the knowledge of Respondent’s well-known trademarks. It shows “that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its activities.” (See Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / CREDIT MUTUEL,WIPO Case No. D2019-1506).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.
Then, Complainant argues that the disputed domain name has been used in bad faith because the website pointed by the disputed domain name is inactive. Indeed, the fact that the website is inactive does not prevent a finding of bad faith use, as previous UDRP Panels found. See Carrefour v. Nikolay Shevchenko, WIPO Case No. D2018-2850: “The Disputed Domain Name is currently inactive. As it has been the case in several previous UDRP cases, the fact that the Disputed Domain Name is currently inactive does not prevent a finding of bad faith use and does not change the Panel’s views in this respect”.
There is no evidence to the contrary since Respondent did not answer to Complainant’s contentions.
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Complainant has therefore satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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 Complainant.
Nathalie Dreyfus
Sole Panelist
Date: October 3, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy