The Complainant is Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel of Paris, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.
The Respondent is Pahun Nathalie of Wayne, New Jersey, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with OnlineNic, Inc. d/b/a China-C (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 10, 2015. On September 11, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 14, 2015, the Registrar 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 September 18, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 8, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 9, 2015.
The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on October 16, 2015. 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, Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, is the central body for the Crédit Mutuel Banking Group. Crédit Mutuel is a famous French banking and insurance service group. Crédit Mutuel operates an Internet website at the address “”.
The Complainant is the owner of the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL, registered in France, the European Union, and other jurisdictions dating back to 1988.
The Complainant is also the owner of several domains names that include the terms “credit mutuel”, such as .
The group is present in every field of finance and is a major player in the market of personal banking and in the corporate area. Its main priority is to provide high-quality relationships and services to its members and customers.
The Complainant is the owner of the domain name , dedicated to its products and services.
At the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name was redirecting users to the Complainant’s official website located at “”.
The disputed domain name was registered on April 18, 2013. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant makes the following submissions and arguments.
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s famous CREDIT MUTUEL trademark. The Complainant adds that the generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLD”) “.com” and “.co” are not to be taken into account when comparing the disputed domain name with its trademarks.
The Complainant considers that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business. The Complainant has granted no license or authorization to the Respondent to make any use or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.
According to the Complainant, in view of the reputation and the reknown of its trademark CREDIT MUTUEL in the field of banking and financial services, it is difficult to imagine that the Respondent could have ignored it at the time it applied for the confusingly similar disputed domain name. Moreover, it is impossible the Respondent was not aware of the existence of the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL when it registered the disputed domain name since it also used the name “Credit M”, as reflected in the WhoIs records for the disputed domain name. The Complainant adds that the disputed domain name is forwarding to the Complainant’s main website.
Consequently, the Complainant states that the Respondent should be considered to have registered and to be using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
For all of the above reasons, the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements:
(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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant is the owner of various CREDIT MUTUEL trademark registrations referenced above.
The Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks are entirely reproduced in the disputed domain name. The sole difference between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks is the addition of the “com” and the “.co” extensions. These extensions should not be taken into account for purposes of evaluating confusion, due to their technical nature.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to many registered trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. Thus, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides examples of circumstances that can demonstrate the existence of rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, as follows:
“(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.”
This Panel is satisfied that the Respondent does not appear to have been commonly known by the disputed domain name, and is not a licensee or an agent of the Complainant, nor in any way authorized to use the Complainant’s trademarks.
Furthermore, according to the Registrar’s verification, the disputed domain name was registered on April 18, 2013, long after the Complainant’s registration of its famous trademarks. The Respondent cannot claim to have been using the terms “credit mutuel”, without being aware of the Complainant’s rights to them, because the disputed domain name is forwarding to the Complainant’s website.
Thus, the Panel concludes that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Hence, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is also satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances, which “in particular but without limitation”, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. These four non-exclusive circumstances, are:
“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your 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 your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”
Owing to a lack of the Response or any other evidence to the contrary, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s arguments substantiated by evidence that, at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent knew or should have known about the Complainant and its trademarks because of a number of CREDIT MUTUEL trademark registrations and extensive use of the same trademarks on the market and Internet by the Complainant. Panels in earlier UDRP cases have recognized that the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark is wellknown (see Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Philppe Marie,WIPO Case No. D2010-1513 and Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Domain Privacy Service Fbo Registrant / Globallink, Germain Nzitat Nana,WIPO Case No. D2015-0944).
It is difficult to imagine that the Respondent could have ignored the existence of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name noting that the Respondent is and was redirecting the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s website located at “”.
The Complainant argued that this was done without its authorization. The Panel notes that redirecting the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s website can be an evidence of bad faith use.
(See Groupe Auchan v. Slawomir Cynkar,WIPO Case No. D2009-0314 and Sanofi contre Benoit Menetrieux,WIPO Case No. D2014-1288). The rationale for this is that the Complainant has no control over the re-direction which could therefore be changed by the sole will of the Respondent at any time.
Thus the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is made out. 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 name be transferred to the Complainant.
Pablo A. Palazzi
Sole Panelist
Date: October 22, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy