The Complainant is Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.
The Respondent is Mohamed Awouol Mounchili, Cameroon.
2. The Domain Names and RegistrarsThe Disputed Domain Name
The Disputed Domain Name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 4, 2021. On November 4, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Names. On November 5, 2021, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that 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 November 24, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 14, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 16, 2021.
The Center appointed Ada L. Redondo Aguilera as the sole panelist in this matter on January 14, 2022. 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. CREDIT MUTUEL is the second French banking and insurance services group, which provides its services to 12 million clients for more than a century.
CREDIT MUTUEL is a network of 3178 offices in France, congregated in 18 regional federations.
Present in all fields of finance, the group is a major actor on the market of banking services for both individuals and businesses.
The official websites of CONFEDERATION NATIONALE DU CREDIT MUTUEL are “www.creditmutuel.com” and “www.creditmutuel.fr”, dedicated to its off- and online services and providing a lot of information to the public about banking services
The Complainant is the owner of a large number of trademarks consisting in or including the terms "CREDIT MUTUEL", in France and in the European Union as it is described as follows:
CREDIT MUTUEL, European Union word trademark n° 18130616 registered on September 2, 2020, in classes 7, 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 45 of Nice Agreement;
CREDIT MUTUEL, European Union semi-figurative Trade Mark n° 16130403 registered on June 6, 2017 in classes 7, 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 45 of Nice Agreement;
CREDIT MUTUEL, European Union semi-figurative Trade Mark n° 18130619 registered on May 22, 2020 in classes 7, 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 45 of Nice Agreement;
CREDIT MUTUEL LA BANQUE A QUI PARLER, European Union semi-figurative Trade Mark n° 5146162 registered on August 23, 2007in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45 of Nice Agreement;
CREDIT MUTUEL, French combined trademark n° 1475940 of July 8, 1988, duly renewed, in classes 35 and 36 and CREDIT MUTUEL, French combined trademark n° 1646012 of November 20, 1990, duly renewed, in classes 16, 35, 36, 38 and 41.
The Complainant and its IT-dedicated subsidiary EURO INFORMATION are respectively the holder of many domain names including, the following:
The disputed domain name
The disputed domain name
The Disputed Domain Names resolve to inactive websites.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant’s submissions may be summarized as follows:
(i) The Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant argues that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to its trademark. The Disputed Domain Names incorporate the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark in its entirety. The addition of the “-online” does not diminish the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Names and the Complainant’s trademark. Also, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” or “help” does not have any impact on the overall impression of the Disputed Domain Names and therefore is irrelevant to determine the confusing similarity between the trademark and the Disputed Domain Names.
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names. The Respondent’s name does not resemble the Disputed Domain Names in any manner. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant. The Complainant has not licensed or consented to the Respondent’s use of the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark in order to use it in the Disputed Domain Names.
(iii) The Disputed Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
The Complainant argues that the Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL trademark is well known in the sector of financial services and that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names long after the Complainant registered the CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks. According to the Complainant the Respondent must be aware of the renown fame of the trademark before registered the Disputed Domain Names.
The Complainant also contends that the Disputed Domain Names do not resolve to any active website and one generates an error 403 web page, is the case of
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsIn accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed in this administrative proceeding and obtain the requested remedy (in this case, transfer of the Disputed Domain Names), the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements are present:
(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 Respondent has 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 presented evidence of the ownership of CREDIT MUTUEL trademark. The Complainant argues that the Disputed Domain Names includes the Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL trademark in its entirety, with the addition of “-online” and the gTLDs “.com” and “.help”. The addition of the word “-online” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, as the Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL trademark is clearly recognizable in both of the Disputed Domain Names.
The gTLDs are generally disregarded when evaluating the identity or confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Names and the Complainant’s trademark. In the current case, the inclusion of the gTLDs “.com and “.help” do not prevent the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Names and the Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL trademark.
For the reasons above, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, and the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsUnder paragraph 4(c) of the Policy:
“Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or 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) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial 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.”
Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires the complainant to establish that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The consensus view among UDRP panels is that where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence, demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). In this case, the Respondent did not rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case regarding the lack of rights or legitimate interests.
In the present case, the Complainant declared that it is not affiliated or associated with the Respondent in any way. The Complainant also argued that it has not authorized or given any license to the Respondent in order to register, use or include the Complainant’s trademarks in the Disputed Domain Names. Furthermore, the Complainant established that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names or the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Complainant stated that the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor has it been otherwise allowed by the Complainant to make any use of the Complainant’s trademarks.
In these proceedings the Respondent is in default. Therefore, the Respondent did not present any evidence, which suggests that it is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Names or is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names or the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL.
At the time of this Decision, both Disputed Domain Names resolve to inactive websites. The Panel finds that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Names.
The Respondent had the opportunity to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests but did not do so. In the absence of a Response from the Respondent, the prima facie case established by the Complainant has not been refuted by the Respondent.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. For all the above-mentioned reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has fulfilled the second element of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithParagraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that “[a domain-name holder] is required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that [a complainant] asserts to the applicable [administrative-dispute-resolution service providers], in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that […] (iii) [the respondent’s] domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.”
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy explicitly states, in relevant part, that “the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
“(iv) by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] web site or location.”
The Panel finds that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its reputation in the market of financial services and also Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL at the time the Disputed Domain Names were registered. Under these circumstances the registration of the Disputed Domain Names were in awareness of the CREDIT MUTUEL mark and, consequently, in the absence of rights or evidence of legitimate interests, the registration of Disputed Domain Names is in bad faith.
The Complainant argues that at the date of the Complainant’s registration of the Disputed Domain Names did not resolve to any active websites. It has been established in various UDRP decisions that passive holding under the appropriate circumstances falls within the concept of the domain name being used in bad faith. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, in which it was found that in order to establish that the registrant was using a domain name in bad faith it was not necessary to find that it had undertaken any positive action in relation to the domain name. Indeed, in circumstances of inaction (“passive holding”), this behavior falls within the concept of the domain name “being used in bad faith”. See also, section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding.
While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put.
In the present case, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith due to the following factors: (i) the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, (ii) the failure of the Respondent to submit a response, and (iii) the fact that the Disputed Domain Names resolve to an inactive websites.
For all the above reasons, the Panel is of the opinion that the Disputed Domain Names satisfy the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) that the Disputed Domain Names were registered and are used in bad faith by the Respondent.
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 Names
Ada L. Redondo Aguilera
Sole Panelist
Date: January 28, 2022