The Complainant is Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.
The Respondent is On behalf of lcreditmutuel.com owner, Whois Privacy Service, United States of America (“United States”) / Robert Michel, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 3, 2020. On July 3, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 3, 2020, 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 13, 2020, 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 July 15, 2020. 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 July 16, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 5, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 6, 2020. The Center appointed William Lobelson as the sole panelist in this matter on August 21, 2020. 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 of the banking group Crédit Mutuel. Crédit Mutuel is the second French banking and insurance services group. The Complainant is operating web portals under the URLs “www.creditmutuel.com” and “www.creditmutuel.fr”, and specifically, “www.creditmutuel.fr” offers online banking services to the Complainant’s clients, who can, once connected with their personal access, manage their account online through this website The Complainant is the registered owner of a large number of trademarks consisting of or including the wording “Crédit Mutuel”, in France and abroad. Inter alia: CRÉDIT MUTUEL, French semi-figurative trademark No. 1475940, registered on July 8, 1988, in classes 35 and 36 (Annex D1 to the Complaint); CRÉDIT MUTUEL, French semi-figurative trademark No. 1646012, registered on November 20, 1990 in classes 16, 35, 36, 38, and 41 (Annex D2 to the Complaint); CRÉDIT MUTUEL, European Union nominative trademark No. 9943135, registered on October 20, 2011 in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, and 45 (Annex D3 to the Complaint); and CRÉDIT MUTUEL, International semi-figurative trademark No. 570182, registered on May 17, 1991 in classes 16, 35, 36, 38, and 41 (Annex D4 to the Complaint). The Complainant has also registered several domain names including the trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL under gTLD and ccTLD domain names. Thus, the Complainant and its IT-dedicated subsidiary Euro Information are respectively the holder of many domain names including, inter alia: All these domain names redirect to the Complainant’s official web portal. In addition, the trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL has been recognized as well known by previous UDRP decisions, inter alia in Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Philippe Marie,WIPO Case No. D2010-1513( The disputed domain name The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its earlier trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Notwithstanding the default of the Respondent, it remains incumbent on the Complainant to make out its case in all respects under the Rules set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. Namely, the Complainant must prove that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i)); (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (paragraph 4(a)(ii)); and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii)). A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name is The Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations formed – exclusively or not, with the name CREDIT MUTUEL. The Complainant also owns (and uses) the domain names The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL in its entirety. The addition of the letter “L” and the generic Top-Level Domain “.com” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The disputed domain name This practice is commonly known as typosquatting, see section 1.9 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”): “A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element.” Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests To demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, non-exclusive respondent defenses under UDRP paragraph 4(c) include the following: (i) before any notice of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services; (ii) the Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if the Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleading divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The Panel notes that the Respondent has not filed a response and thus did not deny the Complainant’s assertions, nor brought any information or evidence for demonstrating any rights or legitimate interests. The Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, particularly by asserting that the Respondent is not affiliated with it in any way and that it never authorized the Respondent to use its trademark as part of the disputed domain name. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent is not known under the disputed domain name and does not make any bona fide use of the same, being emphasized that the disputed domain name does not resolve towards any active web page, but only an error page. The Panel finds that the Complainant has met the requirement under the Policy of showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant claims that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name and uses the same in bad faith, even though the said domain name does not resolve towards any active web page. It is a consensus view among UDRP panels that, with comparative reference to the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP deemed to establish bad faith registration and use, the apparent lack of so-called active use (e.g., to resolve to a website) of the domain name without any active attempt to sell or to contact the trademark holder (passive holding), does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith. The Panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the Respondent is acting in bad faith. Examples of what may be cumulative circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith include the Complainant having a well-known trademark, no response to the Complaint having been filed, and the Respondent’s concealment of its identity. UDRP panels may draw inferences about whether a domain name was used in bad faith given the circumstances surrounding registration. The Complainant has substantiated the fact that its trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL, which has been registered and used in France for years, now benefits from a high level of public’s awareness. Earlier UDRP decisions have acknowledged the Complainant’s trademark reputation: Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Philippe Marie,WIPO Case No. D2010-1513 regarding Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Mariano Jackline and Alex Leparox,WIPO Case No. D2013-2134 regarding Further the disputed domain name was registered using a privacy service filed anonymously, but when the identity of the Respondent was disclosed by the Registrar, it was confirmed that this individual was based in France, that his name sounded French, and that a place of residence in Paris had been declared. The Complainant’s investigations reveal that the details of the Respondent and in particular his address and phone number are not genuine. But, and even when assuming that his name is not fake, the fact that the Respondent used French name, address and phone number implies that he is genuinely French or at least has connections with France, where the Complainant’s mark is very well known. Further, the registration of the disputed domain name, which differs from the well-known Complainant’s trademark only because of the addition of a letter “L”: Regarding the similarity of the disputed domain name with the trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL, there is no way in which the disputed domain name could have been registered and then used in good faith. In light of the above, this Panel finds hard to believe that the Respondent did not have the Complainant’s trademark in mind when he registered the disputed domain name. The Panel also notes that the Respondent did not reply to the Complaint. The Panel infers from the above that the Respondent acted in bad faith when he registered the disputed domain name, and still acts in bad faith. The disputed domain name is currently in error and inactive. The visible use is preceded by a warning page from the browser indicating that the website is a “suspected fraudulent site”. When this warning is dismissed, the Internet user is directed to an error page with a warning banner, still about fraudulent website. As stated in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3, there is a consensus view about “passive holding”: “From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or ‘coming soon’ page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put.” Such passive holding is to be regarded as use in bad faith (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Jupiters Limited v. Aaron Hall,WIPO Case No. D2000-0574; Ladbroke Group Plc v. Sonoma International LDC,WIPO Case No. D2002-0131; Westdev Limited v. Private Data,WIPO Case No. D2007-1903; Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International,WIPO Case No. D2008-1393; Intel Corporation v. The Pentium Group,WIPO Case No. D2009-0273). Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Nicola Bazar,WIPO Case No. D2013-1572: “Respondent knew or should have known that the Domain Name included Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL well-known trademark. […] However, passive holding of the website does not prevent the Panel from finding registration and use in bad faith. The Panel further notes that Respondent undeveloped use of the website at the Domain Name which incorporates Complainant’s trademark in its entirety indicates that Respondent possibly registered the Domain Name with the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the trademark of Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a service on its website or location, as per paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.” Consequently, the Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy are 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 William Lobelson
Sole Panelist
Date: September 4, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy