The Complainant is Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.
The Respondent is Mikkelsen Westbye, Norway. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar(s)
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 18, 2021. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 18, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 19, 2021 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 February 23, 2021. 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 March 1, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 21, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 22, 2021. The Center appointed Gregor Vos as the sole panelist in this matter on March 26, 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 the political and central body for the banking group Crédit Mutuel. The Complainant is the second French banking and insurance services group, which has provided its services to 12 million clients for more than a century, and has a network of 3178 offices in France, congregated in 18 regional federations. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL, inter alia European Union Trademark Registrations Nos. 018130616 (registered on September 2, 2020), 016130403 (registered on June 1, 2017) and 018130619 (registered on May 22, 2020). The Domain Name was registered on January 20, 2021 by the Respondent and it resolves to a pay-per-click (“PPC”) website displaying links related to the Complainant’s services and offering the Domain Name for sale. Further, it is undisputed that the Complainant is the holder of inter alia the domain names With the Complaint, the Complainant seeks that the Domain Name is transferred to the Complainant. The Complaint is based on the following factual and legal grounds: the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL of the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Firstly, according to the Complainant, the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its famous trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL. The trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL is almost identically reproduced in the Domain Name, with the only difference being that the letter “E” is substituted by the letter “A”. This would be a common case of misspelling/typosquatting or typo-piracy of the word “mutuel” for non-French speakers and especially for English speakers. This could cause Internet users to falsely believe that the Domain Name is registered by the Complainant. The mere addition of a generic top-level domain name like “.info” is not sufficient to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL, according to the Complainant. Secondly, according to the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complainant is not affiliated with the Respondent and has never authorized the Respondent to register or use the Domain Name. Also, the Respondent would not be commonly known by the Domain Name and the Domain Name would resolve to a parking website with several hyperlinks in the financial field. This use of the Domain Name would not be a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy nor a legitimate noncommercial of fair use pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy. Finally, according to the Complainant, the Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. According to the Complainant, the strong reputation and the well-known character of the trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL creates a prima facie presumption that the Respondent registered the Domain Name for the purpose of selling the Domain Name to the Complainant or to one of its competitors, or that it was intended to be used in some way to attract for commercial gain users to the website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL. According to the Complainant, the Respondent could not have ignored the reputation of the trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL when registering the Domain Name. Consequently, the Respondent would be trading unfairly on the Complainant’s valuable goodwill by registering the Domain Name. Further, the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name would constitute bad faith, because the Domain Name activates a parking webpage with PPC links related to the financial field, which would point to some of the Complainant’s competitors. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In view of the lack of a response filed by the Respondent as required under paragraph 5 of the Rules, this proceeding has proceeded by way of default. Hence, under paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel is directed to decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant’s undisputed factual presentations. For the Complainant to succeed, it must prove, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and on the balance of probabilities that: i. the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and Only if all three elements have been fulfilled, the Panel is able to grant the remedies requested by the Complainant. The Panel will deal with each of the requirements in turn. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the Domain Name is (i) identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, (ii) in which the Complainant has rights. With respect to having rights pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is noted that the Complainant is registered as the owner of numerous trademarks CRÉDIT MUTUEL, as shown in Annex E1 to E6. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that it has rights in the trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL. With regard to the assessment of identity or confusing similarity of the Domain Name with the trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL, it is generally accepted that this test involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL and the Domain Name (see section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL. 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 trademark (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9). This is confirmed in earlier panel decisions, where the mere substitution of a single letter does not prevent a confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the relevant trademark (Sanofi v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / domain admin, WIPO Case No. D2013-0368 ( In the present case, the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL in its entirety, with the mere substitution of the letter “E” with the letter “A”, which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Consequently, the Panel finds that the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The second requirement the Complainant must prove is that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The onus of proving this requirement, like each element, falls on the Complainant. Given the difficulty in proving a negative, however, it is usually sufficient for a complainant to make out a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. If a complainant does establish a prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to the respondent (see, e.g. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1; Sanofi v. Cimpress Schweiz GmbH, WIPO Case No. D2017-0522). Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists three nonlimitative examples of instances in which a respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has substantiated that none of these circumstances apply in this case. By defaulting, the Respondent has failed to address the prima facie case thus established by the Complainant. Furthermore, based on the record before it, the Panel does not see an indication that any of the circumstances of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy is present. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Paragraph 4(a)(ii) is thereby fulfilled. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, a complainant must show that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists four nonlimitative circumstances which may be considered as evidence of registration and use in bad faith of a domain name. In the present case, the trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL is registered by the Complainant and has been used for many years. The Complainant’s rights to the trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL predate the registration date of the Domain Name. In light of the well-known character of the trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL, the Panel agrees with the Complainant that it is not conceivable that the Respondent chose the Domain Name without knowledge of the Complainant’s activities and its trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL under which the Complainant is doing business. Furthermore, the content of the Respondent’s website linked to the Domain Name contains links to commercial websites in the financial field and suggests that the Domain Name is for sale. This suggests that the Domain Name was registered in recognition of the similarity between the Domain Name and the trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL. These facts show bad faith registration of the Domain Name. With regard to use of the Domain Name in bad faith, the Panel finds that the misspelling of the trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL in the Domain Name signals an intention on the part of the Respondent (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9). In addition, the fact that the Respondent’s website linked to the Domain Name contains an advertisement indicating that it is for sale suggests that it is being used in bad faith, namely for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith and that the third element of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is fulfilled. 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 Domain Name, Gregor Vos
ii. the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
iii. the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Sole Panelist
Date: April 13, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy