The Complainant is Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.
The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Roger legall, France.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 21, 2021. On July 21, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 21, 2021, 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 August 12, 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 amendment to the Complaint on August 12, 2021.
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 September 2, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 22, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 6, 2021.
The Center appointed Elise Dufour as the sole panelist in this matter on October 18, 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 BackgroundThe Complainant is the political and central body for the banking group CREDIT MUTUEL, which is the second French banking and insurance services group, proving its services to 12 million clients for more than a century. It operates a number of web portals including a web portal at “www.creditmutuel.fr” (the “Complainant’s Website”) that offers online banking services.
The Complainant owns several trademark registrations including the following trademarks:
- CREDIT MUTUEL, European Union figurative trademark n° 16130403 with a registration date of June 1, 2017 in Classes 7, 9, 16, 36, 38, 41 and 45;
- CREDIT MUTUEL, French combined trademark n° 1646012 with a registration date of November 20, 1990, duly renewed, in Classes 16, 35, 36, 38 and 41;
- CREDIT MUTUEL, French nominal trademark n° 1475940 with a registration date of July 8, 1988, duly renewed, in Classes 35 and 36.
The Complainant is also the holder of many domain names incorporating the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL such as
The disputed domain name
According to evidence submitted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name used to resolve to a white parking page with the unique mention “targobank.site”.
On September 2, 2021, the disputed domain name resolved to an inactive website.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant contends that (i) the disputed domain name is highly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii) the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
(i) The Complainant claims that the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL is almost identically reproduced in the disputed domain name. The mere adjunction of the letter “L” in the middle of the domain name constitutes the only difference between the disputed domain name and the prior trademark, which, in the opinion of the Complainant, constitutes common case of misspelling/typosquatting or typo-piracy of the words “credit mutuel”. The mere addition of a generic Top-Level domain name (“gTLD”) “.digital” is not sufficient to distinguish the Complainant’s trademark from the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the likelihood of confusion is accentuated by the notoriety of the CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks.
(ii) The Respondent is an individual using the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL without license or authorization and not having any business relations with the Complainant. The Respondent is not commonly known under “CREDITLMUTUEL”. Further, the Respondent is not making any legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name inasmuch the disputed domain name resolves to a white parking page with a unique mention “targobank.site”, which makes direct reference to the German retail bank TARGOBANK, part of the Credit Mutuel CIC group.
(iii) Due to the strong reputation and well-known character of the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL, the Complainant considers that the Respondent could not have ignored the existence of the Complainant’s trademark at the time the disputed domain name was registered. The Complainant finds that the Respondent’s choice of the terms “CREDITL MUTUEL” for the disputed domain name, a very close term to the Complainant’s well-known CREDIT MUTUEL trademark, was not merely coincidental but was deliberate and in full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark
The Complainant also claims that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith use. The disputed domain name resolves to a white parking page with the unique mention “targobank.site”. This mention refers to the German retail bank TARGOBANK, which is part of the Credit Mutuel CIC group.
The Complainant finally points out the fact that the email servers are activated for the disputed domain name, enabling consequently the sending and receipt of potential fraudulent emails. In that respect, the Complainant indicates that, as a banking group, it has continually to face counterfeiting/phishing attempts.
The Complainant has cited previous decisions under the Policy that it considers supportive of its position.
The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsIn the absence of a formal Response, the discussion and findings will be based upon the contentions in the Complaint and any reasonable position that can be attributable to the Respondent.
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the disputed domain name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:
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 was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel will further analyze the potential concurrence of the above circumstances.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s trademarks CREDIT MUTUEL, which, as long established by previous UDRP panels, may be sufficient to determine that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
In addition, the disputed domain name only differs from the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL through the addition of a letter “L” between “CREDIT” and “MUTUEL”. The Panel finds that the Complainant’s mark is clearly recognizable and entirely contained in the disputed domain name. In that respect, 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. (See section 1.7 and section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
Finally, the applicable TLD “.digital” in the domain name is considered a standard technical registration requirement and, as such, is generally disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test, irrespective of its particular ordinary meaning, although said meaning may be relevant to the assessment of the second and third elements. (See section 1.11, WIPO Overview 3.0).
Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Panel finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThe burden of proof is on the Complainant to demonstrate a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once the Complainant has made out a prima facie case, the Respondent may then, inter alia, demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by proving that one of the following circumstances of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy is applicable to the case:
(i) before any notice of the dispute, the Respondent used, or made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the 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 domain name, even if the Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
On the basis of the submitted evidence and arguments, the Panel considers that the Complainant has successfully established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name: The Respondent is not commonly known under the disputed domain name, nor owns any registered rights on the disputed domain name or has been authorized by the Complainant to use the prior trademarks in any way.
As such, the Panel finds that the burden of production regarding this element shifts to the Respondent (see section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).
The Respondent did not to reply to the Complaint, not providing any explanation or evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel considers that if the Respondent had rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, the Respondent would have probably submitted a response to the Complaint.
Furthermore, the evidence demonstrates that, at the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name directed to a white parking page with the unique mention “targobank.site” which makes direct reference to the German retail bank TARGOBANK, part of the Credit Mutuel CIC group. This shows that the Respondent knowing that TARGOBANK is part of Complainant’s group, intended to create commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers.
Accordingly, the Complainant has provided evidence supporting its prima facie claim that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has failed to produce countervailing evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithWith regards to the registration of the disputed domain name, which encompasses the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL with a common spelling mistake, the Panel considers it unlikely that, at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent did not know about the CREDIT MUTUEL mark.
Indeed, given the fact that the Complainant’s trademarks are well-known in the banking services, the Respondent cannot credibly claim to have been unaware of the existence of the previous trademarks (see section 3.2.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.0) and previous UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith (section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).
As to the use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, as previously mentioned, at the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a white parking page with the unique mention “targobank.site”.
This page has however been deactivated, and the disputed domain name now leads to an inactive website with the legend “service unavailable”, which, as previous UDRP Panels have considered, a passive holding situation constitutes bad faith associated with other elements such as the degree of notoriety of the mark or the Respondent’s lack of response, as is the case here (see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).
Moreover, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name email servers are activated, enabling consequently the sending and receipt of potential fraudulent emails. The Panel considers that such use would be damaging to the Complainant’s reputation and interfere with the Complainant’s business activities.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the requirement of registration and use in bad faith is satisfied, according to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii).
7. DecisionFor 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
Elise Dufour
Sole Panelist
Date: November 1, 2021