The Complainant is Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States of America / Wu Yu, China.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 1, 2021. On December 1, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 2, 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 December 2, 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 December 7, 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 December 8, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 28, 2021. The Center received an informal communication from the Respondent dated December 13, 2021. The Center sent the email of Possible Settlement to the Parties on December 13, 2021, and the Complainant did not request the suspension of proceeding or wish to explore settlement options with the Respondent. The Center notified the Parties of the commencement of panel appointment process on December 29, 2021.
The Center appointed Federica Togo as the sole panelist in this matter on January 13, 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, which is a French banking and insurance services group. It is present in all fields of finance and it is a major actor on the market of banking services for both individuals and businesses.
The Complainant is the registered owner of several trademarks worldwide consisting and/or containing CREDIT MUTUEL, e.g. European Union Trademark registration No. 018130616 for CRÉDIT MUTUEL registered on September 2, 2020 for goods and services in classes 7, 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, and 45.
The Respondent is an individual in China.
The disputed domain name was registered on November 10, 2021.
Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a website comprising pay-per-click (“PPC”) links, which are related to the financial sector in which the Complainant operates, some of which directly reference websites of the Complainant’s competitors.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant submits that it operates the domain names
The Complainant contends that its trademark CREDIT MUTUEL is well-known.
The Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known trademark CREDIT MUTUEL, since the latter is entirely reproduced in the disputed domain name, as the distinctive part of the disputed domain name. The mere addition of words that describe the Complainant’s business (i.e. “caisses” is the French word for “funds”; “voscomptes” refers to the French words “vos comptes” that mean “your accounts”) do nothing but to strengthen the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the trademark.
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated or licensed with the Complainant in any way. The Complainant has not given to the Respondent or to anyone else the permission to use its trademarks in any manner, including in domain names. In addition, the Respondent is not currently and has never been known under the disputed domain name. In fact, the Complainant claims that the Respondent’s use of the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark in the disputed domain name was no accident, since such trademark is famous and the use of the disputed domain name to redirect to third-party websites through pay-per-click hyperlinks supports the idea that the Respondent is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Due to the well-known character and reputation of the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its CREDIT MUTUEL trademark at the time he registered the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Complainant provided evidence that the Respondent is engaged in a pattern of conduct of preventing a trademark holder from reflecting its mark in a domain name, as the Respondent has been engaged in a number of UDRP cases regarding domain names which contain other third party marks. Therefore, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on which he had no rights or legitimate interests and introduced itself falsely as the banking services company Credit Mutuel, undoubtedly with intent of deliberate deceit. Additionally, the fact that the disputed domain name resolves to the website containing pay-per-click hyperlinks to third-party websites in the financial field, redirecting Internet users to third-party websites, notably some of the Complainant’s competitors, is also evidence of bad faith use.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsParagraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove each of the following three elements in order to obtain an order that the disputed domain name be transferred or cancelled:
(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.
The Panel will therefore proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarPursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must establish rights in a trademark or service mark and secondly establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
It results from the evidence provided that the Complainant is the registered owner of various trademark registrations for the mark CREDIT MUTUEL.
UDRP panels have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the disputed domain name incorporates the complainant’s trademark in its entirety (e.g. Government Employees Insurance Company v. Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD,
WIPO Case No. D2021-1030; Accenture Global Services Limited v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / William Douglas,
WIPO Case No. D2021-0774). This Panel shares this view and notes that the Complainant’s registered trademark is fully included in the disputed domain name, followed by the term “voscomptesidens” and preceded by the term “caisses” respectively. Furthermore, it is the view of this Panel that the addition of such terms in the disputed domain name and the addition of a hyphen in the disputed domain name between the terms “caisses” and “creditmutuel” cannot prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark since the Complainant’s trademark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) at section 1.8).
Finally, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” of the disputed domain name may be disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test (see WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 1.11.1).
In the light of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsPursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant must secondly establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy contains a non-exhaustive list of circumstances which, if found by the Panel to be proved, shall demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name. In the Panel’s view, based on the undisputed allegations stated above, the Complainant has made a prima facie case that none of these circumstances are found in the case at hand and, therefore, that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
According to the Complaint, which has remained unchallenged, the Complainant has no relationship in any way with the Respondent and did, in particular, not authorize the Respondent’s use of the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL or the registration of the disputed domain name.
Furthermore, the Panel notes that there is no evidence showing that the Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name in the sense of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.
In addition, it results from the undisputed evidence before the Panel that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking website comprising pay-per-click links that compete with or capitalize on the Complainant’s trademark. UDRP panels have found that the use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising pay-per-click links does not represent bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s mark or otherwise mislead Internet users (see WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 2.9, with further references). This Panel shares this view and notes that the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL is well known (see Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel v. Philippe Marie,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1513). Therefore, such use can neither be considered as bona fide offering of goods or services nor 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.
It is acknowledged that once the Panel finds a prima facie case is made by a complainant, the burden of production under the second element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Since the Respondent in the case at hand failed to come forward with any allegations or evidence, this Panel finds, in the circumstances of this case, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant has therefore satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithAccording to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Complainant must thirdly establish that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Policy indicates that certain circumstances specified in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy may, “in particular but without limitation”, be evidence of the disputed domain name’s registration and use in bad faith.
It is the view of this Panel that these circumstances are met in the case at hand:
The Respondent has been involved in a number of trademark-abusive domain name registrations (e.g. Fendi S.r.l. v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot / Wu Yu,
WIPO Case No. D2021-2043; Belfius Bank S.A. / Belfius Bank N.V. v. Wu Yu,
WIPO Case No. D2021-1879; Indeed Inc. v. Wu Yu,
WIPO Case No. DQA2019-0002).
In the view of the Panel this behavior demonstrates a pattern of conduct by the Respondent of taking advantage of trademarks of third parties without any right to do so and is indicative of the Respondent’s bad faith. Previous UDRP panels have held that establishing a pattern of bad faith conduct requires more than one, but as few as two instances of abusive domain name registration, see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.2. The Panel considers that this is the case in the case at issue.
Finally, the further circumstances surrounding the disputed domain name’s registration and use confirm the findings that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. In fact, (1) the Complainant’s trademark is well known; (2) the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page comprising pay-per-click links, which are clearly related to the financial sector in which the Complainant operates; (3) a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no credible explanation for the respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name; (4) the Respondent originally used a privacy service hiding its identity; and (5) the Respondent did not provide any response with conceivable explanation of its behavior.
In the light of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
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,
Federica Togo
Sole Panelist
Date: January 27, 2022