The Complainant is Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.
The Respondents are Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1249378584, 1249365066, 1249365117, 1249365112, 1249564503, 1249564502, 1249596082, 1249611320, 1249642104, 1249774030, 1249131842, 1249115126, 1249402178, 1249342657, Canada / alice ola, zack levy, alicia maurice, albert zolline, tristan girons, alpha riza, alicia ruby, all of France, and onil moulin, Spain. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain names The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 12, 2021. On April 13, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On April 14, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 14, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. In addition, the Center sent an email communication in both French and English regarding the language of the proceeding on the same day. The Complainant replied on April 21, 2021, requesting English to be the language of the proceeding and filed an amendment to the Complaint. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 April 22, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 12, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 14, 2021. The Center appointed Wilson Pinheiro Jabur as the sole panelist in this matter on May 21, 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 a French banking group. The Complainant is the owner, amongst others, of the following trademark registrations: - French Trademark registration No. 1646012 for the word and device mark CREDIT MUTUEL, registered on November 20, 1990, subsequently renewed, in classes 16, 35, 36, 38, and 41; and - European Union Trade Mark registration No. 18130616 for the word mark CREDIT MUTUEL, filed on September 30, 2019 and registered on September 2, 2020, in classes 7, 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, and 45. The disputed domain names were registered on and are presently used in connection with: Disputed Domain Name Registration Date Use February 5, 2021 Fraudulent activity alert when accessing the webpage. February 8, 2021 Fraudulent activity alert when accessing the webpage. January 13, 2021 No active webpage February 8, 2021 Fraudulent activity alert when accessing the webpage. February 8, 2021 Fraudulent activity alert when accessing the webpage. March 1, 2021 Fraudulent activity alert when accessing the webpage. February 26, 2021 No active webpage February 26, 2021 No active webpage January 15, 2021 No active webpage March 3, 2021 Fraudulent activity alert when accessing the webpage. March 6, 2021 No active webpage February 9, 2021 No active webpage March 20, 2021 Fraudulent activity alert when accessing the webpage. February 11, 2021 No active webpage 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant asserts to be the second largest French banking and insurance services group, providing services to 12 million clients for more than a century, under the well-known CREDIT MUTUEL trademark, which has obtained strong reputation. The Complainant submits that the 14 disputed domain names are subject to common control by either the same person or connected parties and for reasons of fairness, equity, and efficiency, the Complainant requests consolidation of multiple Respondents to the same Complaint, given that (i) all of the disputed domain names were registered under the same privacy proxy provider based in Toronto, Canada; (ii) within a short period of time comprised between January 13, 2021 and March 20, 2021; (iii) sharing a similar naming pattern consisting of the reproduction of the Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL trademark in its entirety with the addition of terms usually used in connection with online secured activities such as “dsp” or variations thereof; (iv) being presently passively held; and (v) sharing similar common contact details such as first name, email addresses, postal addresses, and telephone numbers. The Complainant further submits that the language of the proceedings should be English in spite of the language of the registration agreements being French given that there are strong indications that the Respondents deliberately provided likely false contact details, also having been named respondents in past UDRP procedures which were decided in the English language such as Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Identity Protection Service, Identity Protect Limited / Zack Levy,WIPO Case No. D2019-2063 and Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Badr Chibani, Pierro Chip, Chinara Maya, Zack Levy, Zack, Anais Mila, Home For This, Zack Lev, Ana Moral and Ilnois Market,WIPO Case No. D2020-3279. The 14 disputed domain names are, according to the Complainant, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, given the reproduction of its well-known CREDIT MUTUEL trademark which is clearly recognizable as the leading element of the disputed domain names, not adding any distinctiveness thereto the addition of “dsp2”, “dsp2ap”, “dsp2p”, “p2s”, “dssp”, “app”, “protocole”, or “security” which are acronyms or generic terms at the end of the disputed domain names usually used in connection with online secured activities such as banking services, specifically those that offer an extra secured connection though mobile devices such as the “payment services PSD 2” under the European Directive 2015/2366. Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names given that: (a) the Respondents are not sponsored by or affiliated or licensed with the Complainant in any way, the Complainant not having given the Respondents permission to use the Complainant’s trademark in any manner; (b) the Respondents are not and have never been commonly known by the disputed domain names; and (c) the non-use of the disputed domain names does not characterize a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names under the Policy. As to the registration of the disputed domain names in bad faith, the Complainant asserts that the Respondents knew or should have known of the Complainant’s well-known trademark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain names considering that it has acquired substantial goodwill and reputation in Europe, at least, and the additions made to that mark in the disputed domain names being a clear indication of the Respondents’ intent to unduly profit from an association thereof and acronyms and terms associated with IT security and online banking services. Further, the Respondents’ intent to capitalize on the strong reputation of the Complainant’s distinctive trademark can easily be inferred given that it would be inconceivable to believe that the Respondents would have chosen to register the 14 disputed domain names for any arbitrary reason other than to target the Complainant’s trademark. Moreover, the choice to retain privacy protection services and to provide what appear to be false contact details are further evidence of the Respondents’ bad faith. B. Respondents The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets forth three requirements, which have to be met for this Panel to order the transfer of the disputed domain names to the Complainant: (i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and (iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant must prove in this administrative proceeding that each of the aforesaid three elements is present in order to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain names. Before turning to these questions, however, the Panel needs to address the procedural issues of the consolidation of multiple Respondents and of the language of the proceedings. A. Consolidation of Multiple Respondents The Complainant requests that this Panel accept multiple Respondents in a single proceeding in view of the facts enumerated at the section 5.A. above. Section 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) establishes that “[w]here a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario”. All of the aforementioned criteria are present in this case and therefore this Panel accepts such request considering that it would be more procedurally efficient to have the 14 disputed domain names dealt with at the same procedure, given that the disputed domain names were registered within a period of approximately two months, sharing the same naming pattern, Registrar, privacy server, and using what appears to be false contact details. This Panel is satisfied, in view of the evidence submitted and on balance that the disputed domain names are indeed subject to a common control and that consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. B. Language of Proceedings The language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain names is French whereas the Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant submitted a request that the language of the proceedings be English, noting the apparently fake contact details of the Respondents and previous UDRP proceedings in which a number of the Respondents were involved. The Respondents did not comment on the language of the proceedings or object to the Complainant’s request for English to be the language of the proceedings. In accordance with paragraph 11 of the Rules, the Panel has the authority to determine the language of proceedings. Considering the circumstances of this case and the fact that the Respondents did not reply to any of the communications sent by the Center, both in English and in French, this Panel does not consider it prejudicial to the Respondents if English were adopted as the language of the proceeding. The proceeding would be unduly delayed if the Complaint had to be translated into French. Accordingly, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s request for English to be the language of this proceeding. C. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established its rights in the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark. The Panel finds that the disputed domain names reproduce the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety. The addition of letters or terms at the end of the disputed domain names does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the Policy which, as recognized by past UDRP panels, involves a “side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name” (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7). The first element of the Policy has therefore been established. D. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a nonexclusive list of circumstances that may indicate the Respondents’ rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. These circumstances are: (i) before any notice of the dispute, the Respondents’ use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain names or a name corresponding to the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) the Respondents (as individuals, businesses, or other organizations) have been commonly known by the disputed domain names, in spite of not having acquired trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) the Respondents are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The Respondents, in not formally responding to the Complaint, have failed to invoke any of the circumstances, which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. This entitles the Panel to draw any such inferences from such default as it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. Nevertheless, the burden of proof is still on the Complainant to make a prima facie case against the Respondents. In that sense, the Panel notes that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondents lack rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, indeed stating that the Respondents are not sponsored by or affiliated or licensed with the Complainant in any way, the Complainant not having given the Respondents permission to use the Complainant’s CREDTI MUTUEL trademark in any manner. Also, the lack of evidence as to whether the Respondents are commonly known by the disputed domain names and the absence of any trademarks registered by the Respondents corresponding to the disputed domain names corroborates the indication of an absence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The lack of use of the disputed domain names and the warning of potential fraudulent activity being conducted through the a number of the disputed domain names, alerted by some Internet browsers when accessing said disputed domain names, cannot be characterized as a bona fide offering of goods or services. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondents lack rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The second element of the Policy has also been met. E. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In this case, the warning of potential fraudulent activity being conducted through some of the disputed domain names in connection with a well-known trademark characterizes the Respondents’ intent of taking advantage of the Complainant’s trademark. Noting the nature of the disputed domain names, comprising the Complainant’s well-known CREDIT MUTUEL trademark and letters or terms associated with secure online transactions, the Panel finds it more likely than not that the Respondent had the Complainant and CREDIT MUTUEL trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain names, and thus registered the disputed domain names in bad faith to take advantage of Complainant and its mark. Further, the Panel finds that the currently inactive use of the disputed domain names does not prevent a finding of bad faith. Prior UDRP panels have held that the non-use of domain names may support a finding of bad faith when considering factors such as the distinctive nature and reputation of the trademark, the failure of the respondent to file a response, and the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put. These factors are present in the current case and accordingly support a finding of bad faith here. Further, the choice to retain privacy protection services and the indication of false contact details further corroborates the finding of the Respondents’ bad faith. For the reasons above, the Panel finds that the Respondents have registered and are using the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The third element of the Policy has therefore been met. 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 Wilson Pinheiro Jabur
Sole Panelist
Date: June 4, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy