WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel and Crédit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. Trabaja Jayam, Zeb Fi Tarmatek Case No. DLC2009-0002 1. The Parties
The Complainants are Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel and Crédit Industriel et Commercial S.A. of Paris, France. The Complainants are represented by Meyer & Partenaires of Strasbourg, France.
The Respondent is Trabaja Jayam, Zeb Fi Tarmatek of Algiers, Algeria. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names and are registered with CSL Computer Service Langenbach GmbH d/b/a . 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 11, 2009. On February 11, 2009, the Center transmitted by email to CSL Computer Service Langenbach GmbH d/b/a a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 13, 2009, CSL Computer Service Langenbach GmbH d/b/a 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 19, 2009. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 11, 2009. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on March 12, 2009.
The Center appointed Jonathan Agmon as the sole panelist in this matter on March 17, 2009. 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 first Complainant, Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel (hereinafter “Crédit Mutuel”), is the political and central body of the Crédit Mutuel Banking Group – a French banking and insurance service group, which provides services to approximately fourteen million clients for more than a century. Crédit Mutuel consists of a network of 3100 offices in France, managed through eighteen regional banks.
Crédit Mutuel is the owner of multiple trademarks in France and worldwide that are consisting of or including the wording “credit mutuel”. For example, Crédit Mutuel is the owner of French trademark registration No. 1475940 for the CREDIT MUTUEL & Design trademark with the filing date of July 8, 1988. Crédit Mutuel has been continuously using its CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks for over two decades.
Crédit Mutuel promotes its activities, among others, through its registered domain names: and . Furthermore, Crédit Mutuel's computing subsidiary, Euro-Information, had also registered the domain names , , and . All these domain names direct consumers to Crédit Mutuel's official website.
The second Complainant, Crédit Industriel et Commercial S.A. (hereinafter “CIC”), is a French banking group, funded as early as 1859. CIC provides services for almost four million clients and has a network of approximately 2055 commercial offices. CIC also comprises of six regional banks and multiple branches worldwide.
CIC has been continuously using the CIC trademark and acronym since 1852. Furthermore, CIC is the owner of a large number of trademarks in France and worldwide that are consisting or including the wording “CIC”. For example, CIC is the owner of French trademark registration No. 1358524 for the C.I.C trademark with the filing date of June 10, 1986.
CIC is also the owner of multitude domain names that are consisting of or including the wording CIC, such as , , , etc. Euro-Information, Crédit Mutuel's computing subsidiary, also owns several domain names that are making use of the CIC trademarks and direct consumers to the Complainants' websites.
In 1998 CIC and Crédit Mutuel merged into the Credit Mutuel CIC Group and are now being considered the second largest banking and insurance service group in France.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain names and on October 8, 2008. The disputed domain names used websites under the disputed domain names similar to those of the Complainants' while obtaining financial and private banking information on the Complainants' Internet users. 5. Parties' Contentions A. The Complainants
The Complainants argue that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks owned by the Complainants, seeing that they are consisting of those trademarks. The Complainants assert that the lack of space or dots in the disputed domain names is irrelevant and should be ignored through the assessment of the similarity between the disputed domain names and the registered trademarks owned by the Complainants.
The Complainants further argue that they have exclusive rights to the CREDIT MUTUEL and CIC trademarks and that these trademarks are widely recognized with the Complainants and the Complainants' operations. Furthermore, the Complainants argue that they have not provided the Respondent with a license, permission or authorization to use or otherwise dispose of the CREDIT MUTUEL and CIC trademarks or to the disputed domain names.
The Complainants further argue that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names in bad faith because they were fully aware of the Complainants' well known trademarks and good will.
The Complainants also argue that the Respondent is using the disputed domain names to intentionally direct Internet users from the Complainants' products and services and that such use is also indicative of the Respondent's bad faith use of the disputed domain names.
The Complainants further argue that the Respondent's use of the disputed domain names to obtain private personal data, login and passwords of the Complainants' Internet users is a phishing scheme that constitutes bad faith use of the disputed domain names.
For all of the above reasons, the Complainants request the transfer of the disputed domain names. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complaint. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainants to show that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights.
A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certificate belong to its respective owner. CREDIT MUTUEL and CIC trademarks are registered to the Complainants in various jurisdictions around the world. For example, the Complainants own French trademark registration No. 1475940 for the CREDIT MUTUEL & Design mark with the filing date of July 8, 1988 and French trademark registration No. 1358524 for the C.I.C mark with the filing date of June 10, 1986.
The disputed domain name differs from the registered CREDIT MUTUEL marks only by the lack of space between the two words. The disputed domain name consists of the first part of some of the CIC marks and differs from other CIC marks only by the lack of dots between the letters.
Previous WIPO UDRP Panels have found that the absence of space or stresses in a disputed domain name existing in a trademark is to be ignored in the assessment of similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark at hand. See Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. XUBO,WIPO Case No. D2006-1268.
The addition of a country code top-level domain (ccTLD) “.sc” or “.lc” to the disputed domain names does not avoid confusing similarity. See F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A.,WIPO Case No. D2006-0451 and Telstra Corp Ltd v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. Thus, the ccTLDs “.sc” and “.lc” are without legal significance since use of a ccTLD is technically required to operate the domain names and it does not serve to identify the source of the goods or services provided by the registrant of the disputed domain names.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainants have shown that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainants have rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Once the Complainants established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain names (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii)).
In the present case the Complainants allege that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names and the Respondent has failed to assert any such rights.
The Panel finds the Complainants have established such prima facie case, inter alia. due to the fact that the Complainants have not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the CREDIT MUTUEL and CIC trademarks, a variation or a combination thereof. The Respondent has not submitted a Response and has not provided any evidence to show that it has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Accordingly and taking into account the use of the disputed domain disputes as explained further below, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainants must show that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii)). Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides circumstances that may prove bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii).)
It is suggestive that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith where the trademarks owned by Complainants were registered long before the registration of the disputed domain names. The Complainants submitted evidence, which shows that the Complainants' trademarks CREDIT MUTUEL and CIC were registered and are well known in the banking and insurance services market; and that their trademarks are well recognized publicly. It is unlikely that the Respondent did not recognize or were not familiar with the Complainants' trademarks at the time of registration.
Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy provides that it will be considered bad faith registration and use if the respondent by using the domain name, have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website or other online location to which the disputed domain name is resolved to, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the web site or location or of a product or service on the website or location to which the disputed domain name is resolved to.
The fact that the Respondent tried to duplicate the appearance of the Complainants' websites, direct Internet users through a permanent transparent redirection to a third party's official web page (eMasters), and sent emails to the Complainants' clients in order to obtain the Complainants' clients' personal security keys used in banking transactions on the Internet is further evidence of bad faith registration.
In all probability, the Respondent, aware of the Complainants line of business, registered the domain names in order to attract Internet users for commercial gain by “phishing”. “Phishing” is an online misappropriation, designed to obtain users' personal data, login and password information, in addition to various financial information. “Phishing” is a pre-organized operation that is designed to profit from the confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website with those of the Complainants. See, Grupo Financiero Inbursa, S.A. de C.V. v. inbuirsa,WIPO Case No. D2006-0614 and Banca Intesa S.p.A. v. Moshe Tal,WIPO Case No. D2006-0228.
Accordingly, having regard to the circumstances of this particular case, the Panel finds that the Complainants have met their burden under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
It is therefore the finding of the Panel that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. 7. Decision
For all 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, and be transferred to the Complainants.
Jonathan Agmon
Sole Panelist
Dated: March 22, 2009
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy