The Complainant is Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.
The Respondents are Badr Chibani, Pierro Chip, Chinara Maya, Zack Levy, Zack, Anais Mila, Home For This, Zack Lev, Ana Moral and Ilnois Market, all of France. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain names The disputed domain name The disputed domain names The disputed domain names Google LLC, Register NV dba Register.eu, Register SPA and eNom LLC are individually and collectively referred to below as “the Registrar”. 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 3, 2020. On the following day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with nineteen of the disputed domain names. On December 4, December 7 and December 9, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center verification responses disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondents and contact information in the Complaint. On December 21, 2020, the Complainant filed a first amended Complaint in English adding domain names to the Complaint. On January 4, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the newly added disputed domain names. On the same day, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the newly added disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondents and contact information in the first amended Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 11, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information for all the disputed domain names disclosed by the Registrar. The Complainant filed a second amended Complaint in English on January 14, 2021. The Center sent an email communication in English, French and Portuguese to the Parties on January 11, 2021 regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant filed a request for English to be the language of the proceeding on January 14, 2021. The Respondents did not comment on the language of the proceeding. On January 21, 2021, the Center noted that there appears to be at least prima facie grounds, regarding all or part of the disputed domain names, sufficient to warrant accepting the Complaint for the Panel’s final determination of the consolidation request on appointment. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaints 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 sent the Respondents a formal notification in English, French and Portuguese of the second amended Complaint (referred to below as “the Complaint”) and the proceedings commenced on January 21, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 10, 2021. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on February 11, 2021. The Center appointed Matthew Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on March 17, 2021. 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 an association registered under a French Law of July 1, 1901, acting as the political and central body of Crédit Mutuel, a French banking and insurance group. The Complainant holds multiple trademark registrations, including French trademark registration number 1475940 for a semi-figurative trademark featuring the words “Crédit Mutuel”, registered from July 8, 1988, specifying services in classes 35 and 36; French trademark registration number 1646012 for a semi-figurative mark featuring the words “Crédit Mutuel”, registered from November 20, 1990, specifying goods and services in classes 16, 35, 36, 38 and 41; European Union trademark registration number 16130403 for a semi-figurative mark featuring the words “Crédit Mutuel”, registered on June 1, 2017, specifying goods and services in classes 7, 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 45; and European Union trademark registration number 18130616 for CREDIT MUTUEL, registered on September 2, 2020, specifying goods and services in classes 7, 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 45. Those trademark registrations remain current. The Complainant has also registered domain names, including The Respondents are named as individuals and an organization at various addresses in France. The disputed domain names were registered on the dates and by the registrants shown below. Registration date Disputed domain name Registrant name October 19, 2020 Badr Chibani October 19, 2020 Badr Chibani October 19, 2020 Badr Chibani October 19, 2020 Pierro Chip October 19, 2020 Pierro Chip October 20, 2020 Chinara Maya October 20, 2020 Chinara Maya October 20, 2020 Chinara Maya October 20, 2020 Chinara Maya October 26, 2020 Zack Levy October 26, 2020 Zack October 27, 2020 Zack October 30, 2020 Anais Mila October 30, 2020 Anais Mila November 11, 2020 Home For This November 10, 2020 Home For This November 11, 2020 Zack Lev November 11, 2020 Zack Lev November 13, 2020 Zack Lev November 13, 2020 Zack Lev November 16, 2020 Ana Moral November 16, 2020 Ana Moral November 17, 2020 Ilnois Market November 17, 2020 Ilnois Market Four disputed domain names resolve to landing pages advising merely that they have been activated.1 The other 20 disputed domain names do not resolve to any active website; rather, they are passively held. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL trademark. All the disputed domain names reproduce the CREDIT MUTUEL mark, associated with technical secure terms. The Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Respondents are not related in any way to the Complainant's business. The Respondents are not currently and have never been known by the disputed domain names. No license or authorization has been granted to the Respondents to make any use or apply for registration of the disputed domain names. The disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The disputed domain names reproduce the well-known CREDIT MUTUEL mark. They add “dsp2” and other terms to foster a feeling of security and protection among Internet users. The disputed domain names are passively held. There is no evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use of the disputed domain names. There is a strong suspicion that the Respondent intends to use the disputed domain names in a phishing scam. B. Respondents The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Procedural Issues A. Consolidation: Multiple Domain Name Registrants The Complaint initiates disputes in relation to ten nominally different domain name registrants. The registrant of each disputed domain name is shown in the table in section 4 above. The Complainant alleges that the registrants are actually the same person or entity and requests consolidation of the disputes against the disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules. The disputed domain name registrants did not comment on the Complainant’s request. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. However, the Panel does not consider that paragraph 3(c) was intended to enable a single person or entity to put a complainant to the unnecessary time, expense and effort of initiating multiple proceedings against technically different domain name registrants, particularly when each registration raises the same issues. In addressing the Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2. As regards common control, the Panel notes that disputed domain names were registered by nominally different registrants. However, the disputed domain names follow a pattern in that they all incorporate “creditmutuel” or “credit-mutuel” as their initial element and they all include the additional element “dsp”, among others. All the disputed domain names were registered within a period of one month and some disputed domain names were registered by nominally different registrants on the same day (Badr Chibani and Pierro Chip; Zack and Zack Levy). Three registrants’ names are similar (Zack, Zack Lev and Zack Levy). One registrant name (Zack Levy) is the email user name of two other nominally different registrants (Zack and Home For This). Email user names includes the same name for nominally different registrants (Badr Chibani and Chinara Maya; Ana Moral and Ilnois Market). Nominally different registrants share the same contact address (Zach Lev and Home For This; Ana Moral and Ilnois Market). Contact addresses of nominally different registrants include the same street name (Badr Chibani and Anais Mila; Zack and Ana Moral). All the named registrants use the same privacy service, all list addresses in France, and all the disputed domain names are passively held or resolve to a landing page merely advising that they have been activated. In these circumstances, the Panel is persuaded that the disputed domain name registrants are under common control or indeed the same person. As regards fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any Party. Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain name registrants (jointly and collectively referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding. B. Language of the Proceeding Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that “unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding”. The Registrar confirmed that the Registration Agreements for the disputed domain names are variously in English, French and Portuguese. The Complainant requests that the language of the proceeding be English. Its main arguments are that there is evidence that the Respondent has knowledge of the English language as it chose an English-language privacy service in Toronto, Canada and the majority of the disputed domain names contain English terms; the Respondent’s contact details are presumably fictitious; and the translation of the Complaint into French or Portuguese would cause unduly delay and costs to the Complainant. Paragraph 10(b) and (c) of the Rules require the Panel to ensure that the Parties are treated with equality, that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case and that the administrative proceeding take place with due expedition. Prior UDRP panels have decided that the choice of language of the proceeding should not create an undue burden for the parties. See, for example, Solvay S.A. v. Hyun-Jun Shin,WIPO Case No. D2006-0593; Whirlpool Corporation, Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v. Hui’erpu (HK) electrical appliance co. ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2008-0293. The Panel observes that in this proceeding the Complaint and amended Complaints were all filed in English. The Panel has already found that the various named domain name registrants are all under common control or indeed the same person (see section 6.A above). The Registration Agreements for nine of the disputed domain names are in English, which indicates that the Respondent is able to communicate in that language. Further, despite the Center having sent an email regarding the language of the proceeding and Notification of the Complaint in English, French and Portuguese, the Respondent has not commented on the issue of language nor expressed any interest in participating in this proceeding. Therefore, the Panel considers that requiring the Complainant to translate the Complaint would create an undue burden and delay. Having considered all the circumstances above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of this proceeding is English. 6.2. Substantive Issues Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that a complainant must prove each of the following elements with respect to each disputed domain name: (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 in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the CREDIT MUTUEL mark. All of the disputed domain names incorporate the CREDIT MUTUEL mark as their respective initial elements, without the space between the words for technical reasons, while twelve disputed domain names contain a hyphen instead of the space. The disputed domain names also incorporate some combination of the following additional elements: “dsp2”, “2dsp”, “p”, “protect”, “protection”, “protocole”, “s”, “secure” and “secured”. Sixteen disputed domain names also contain hyphens separating the CREDIT MUTUEL mark and the additional elements from each other. However, as mere abbreviations, dictionary words and punctuation, none of these additional elements prevents a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL trademark as that trademark remains clearly recognizable within all the disputed domain names. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8 and, for example, Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc. / Isabelle Garcia, Credit Mutuel Fiable,WIPO Case No. D2017-0214. The only other element in the disputed domain names is a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix (variously “.com”, “.net”, “.online”, “.org”, “.site” or “.website”). As a mere technical requirement of registration, this element is generally disregarded in the comparison between a domain name and a trademark for the purposes of the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out the following circumstances which, without limitation, if found by the panel, shall demonstrate that the respondent has rights to, or legitimate interests in, a disputed domain name, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy: (i) before any notice to [the respondent] 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 or services; or (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 misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. As regards the first and third circumstances set out above, the disputed domain names are passively held or resolve to a landing page merely advising that they have been activated. The Complainant submits that no license or authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use or apply for registration of the disputed domain names. Neither use of the disputed domain names is in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services within the terms of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. Nor is either use a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the terms of paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy. As regards the second circumstance set out above, none of the Respondent’s names as listed in the Registrar’s WhoIs database corresponds to any of the disputed domain names. There is no evidence indicating that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names as envisaged by paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. In summary, the Panel considers that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Respondent failed to rebut that prima facie case because he did not respond to the Complaint. Therefore, based on the record of this proceeding, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the second element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that certain circumstances shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith but these circumstances are not exhaustive. With respect to registration, the disputed domain names were registered in 2020, after the registration of the Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL trademark, including in France where the Respondent is ostensibly resident. The disputed domain names incorporate the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark as their respective initial elements. The Complainant has a considerable reputation in its CREDIT MUTUEL mark in the banking and insurance sectors due to its longstanding and widespread use of that mark, particularly in France. The disputed domain names combine that mark with additional elements that refer to online payment security, namely some combination of “dsp2” or “2dsp” (references to Directive (EU) 2015/2366 on Payment Services), “p”, “protect”, “protection”, “protocole” (French for “protocol”), “s”, “secure” and “secured”. This indicates an awareness of the nature of the Complainant’s business. The Respondent offers no explanation for his choice of the disputed domain names. In view of these circumstances, the Panel considers it likely that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s mark at the time at which he registered the disputed domain names. With respect to use, the Respondent currently makes only passive use of most disputed domain names, while it uses four in connection with a landing page merely advising that they have been activated. These circumstances do not preclude a finding of use in bad faith. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. In the present dispute, the disputed domain names combine the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark with terms that refer to online payment security. The Complainant has acquired a considerable reputation in the CREDIT MUTUEL mark and provides online payment services. The Complainant submits that the Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainant's business. In the Panel’s view, the most likely intended use of the disputed domain names is to create a false impression that they implement the Complainant’s online payment authentication protocols, as part of a phishing scheme. The Respondent provides no explanation of any other potential use of the disputed domain names. In all these circumstances, the Panel considers it more likely than not that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant has satisfied the third element in paragraph 4(a) 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 names Matthew Kennedy 1 The four are
Sole Panelist
Date: March 29, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy