The Complainant is Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States of America (“United States”) / Brad Palma, Philippines. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 23, 2020. On October 23, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 23, 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 October 26, 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 October 27, 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 October 29, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 18, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 19, 2020. The Center appointed Andrew F. Christie as the sole panelist in this matter on November 27, 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 for the banking group known as “Crédit Mutuel”. Crédit Mutuel is one of the largest French banking and insurance services groups, has operated for more than a century, services 12 million clients, and has a network of 3,178 offices in France. The Complainant is the owner of a number of word and figurative trademark registrations in France and elsewhere consisting of or including the words “credit mutuel”, including French Trademark Registration No. 1475940 CREDIT MUTUEL (filed on July 8, 1988), and European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 18130616 CREDIT MUTUEL (filed on September 30, 2019, and registered on September 2, 2020). The Complainant operates websites providing information to the public and services to its clients using the domain names The disputed domain name was registered on September 16, 2020. The Complainant has provided an undated screenshot showing that the disputed domain name resolved to a page stating that “The page you are trying to visit has been blocked by the Netcraft Toolbar because it is believed to be part of a fraudulent phishing attack.” As of the date of this decision, resolution of the disputed domain name is blocked by various browsers, which show a page containing these or similar words: “Deceptive site ahead Attackers on The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights because: (i) the Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL trademark is identically reproduced in the disputed domain name, with the addition of the descriptive word “site”, which suggests that the disputed domain name is linked to the Complainant and creates confusion for Internet users who may believe falsely that the disputed domain name refers to a uniform resource locator (“URL”) set up by the Complainant for pointing to its official website; and (ii) the new generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.xyz” designation may be disregarded for the purpose of this comparison. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name because: (i) there was no license or authorization given to any individual, business or other organization to register the disputed domain name; (ii) there is no known relationship of any kind between the Complainant and the Respondent that could justify registration and use of the disputed domain name; (iii) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or by any combination of the term “creditmutuel”; and (iv) the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website which has been blocked by Netcraft tools due to suspected phishing, and this “use” of the disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to the Policy. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because: (i) the Complainant has demonstrated the strong reputation and well-known character of its CREDIT MUTUEL trademark, and the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name precisely because of this; (ii) the addition of the descriptive term “site” to the well-known CREDIT MUTUEL trademark within the disputed domain name demonstrates that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its activities in France; (iii) by registering a domain name incorporating the Complainant’s well-known CREDIT MUTUEL trademark, the Respondent is trading unfairly on the Complainant’s valuable goodwill established in such a trademark, and is confusing Internet users; (iv) the disputed domain name is currently in error and inactive, which constitutes bad faith use as “passive holding”; (v) given the reputation of the Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL trademark, it is implausible that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in good faith as the Complainant has never given any authorization to anyone to register the disputed domain name; and (vi) the Respondent’s identity is private. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Once the gTLD “.xyz” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), the disputed domain name consists of the whole of the Complainant’s registered word trademark CREDIT MUTUEL preceded by the word “site”. The Complainant’s word trademark CREDIT MUTUEL is the dominant element of the disputed domain name. The addition of the word “site”, which Internet users are likely to read as being a reference to an online location, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity of the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s word trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent is not a licensee of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Complainant, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its CREDIT MUTUEL trademark. The Respondent has not provided any evidence that it has been commonly known by, or has made a bona fide use of, the disputed domain name, or that it has, for any other reason, rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website; instead, browsers block resolution of the disputed domain name due to suspected phishing activity. According to the present record, therefore, the disputed domain name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The disputed domain name was registered many years after the Complainant first registered its CREDIT MUTUEL trademark. The evidence on the record provided by the Complainant with respect to the use of its CREDIT MUTUEL trademark, combined with the absence of any evidence provided by the Respondent to the contrary, is sufficient to satisfy the Panel that, at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademark. Given the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s trademark, any use of the disputed domain by the Respondent would carry a high risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant, and would be a use in bad faith. The fact that browsers block resolution of the disputed domain name due to suspected phishing activity is evidence that the Respondent has attempted to engage in such bad faith use. In any case, given the Complainant’s reputation in its trademark and the Respondent’s failure to submit a Response to the Complaint, it is not possible to conceive of any good faith use to which the Respondent could put the disputed domain name. Therefore, even if the Respondent has not actually used the disputed domain name to engage in phishing, its holding of the disputed domain name is in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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, Andrew F. Christie
Sole Panelist
Date: December 11, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy