WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / CREDIT MUTUEL

Case No. D2019-1506

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.

The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States of America / CREDIT MUTUEL, France.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <notification-creditmutuel.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 28, 2019. On June 28, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 28, 2019, 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 July 3, 2019 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 July 8, 2019.

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 July 9, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 29, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 31, 2019.

The Center appointed Christophe Caron as the sole panelist in this matter on August 15, 2019. 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 is the Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, the political and central body for the French banking group CREDIT MUTUEL.

The Complainant owns several trademarks consisting in or including the wording CREDIT MUTUEL, protected worldwide, and notably:

- French semi-figurative trademark CREDIT MUTUEL No. 1475940, registered on July 8, 1988, duly renewed, covering goods and services in classes 35 and 36.
- European Union nominative trademark CREDIT MUTUEL, No. 009943135, registered on May 5, 2011, covering goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42 and 45.
- International semi-figurative trademark CREDIT MUTUEL No. 570182, registered on May 17, 1991 duly renewed, covering goods and services in classes 16, 35, 36, 38 and 41.

In addition, the Complainant operates, among other, domain names reflecting its trademarks in order to promote its services:

- <creditmutuel.com> registered on October 28, 1995;
- <creditmutuel.info> registered on September 13, 2001;
- <creditmutuel.org> registered on June 3, 2002.

The disputed domain name <notification-creditmutuel.com> was registered on April 19, 2019.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant makes the following contentions.

Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant first argues that the disputed domain name is highly confusingly similar to its trademark CREDIT MUTUEL in the extent that the disputed domain name reproduces the trademark in its entirety.

Moreover, the Complainant asserts that it is well established that the generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”) “.com” have not to be taken into account while comparing the disputed domain name with a trademark. Therefore, the Complainant explains that the only difference between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark is the mere addition of the word “notification”.

According to the Complainant, “creditmutuel” constitutes the distinctive and dominant element of the disputed domain name whereas the word “notification”, which may refer to an official message from the Complainant, is evocative of the Complainant’s activities.

For the above-mentioned reasons, the Complainant considers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL, and therefore the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) is fulfilled.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

According to the Complainant, the Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is in any way affiliated with the Complainant, nor authorized or licensed to use the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL.

The Complainant adds that the disputed domain name does not resolve to any active website but generates an error web page. The Complainant explains that this “use” is neither a bona fide offering of good or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

For all of the above-cited reasons, the Complainant considers it is undoubtedly established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

- Registration in bad faith

The Complainant states that, given the well-known character of its trademark CREDIT MUTUEL, at least in France, the Respondent could not have ignored them when registering the disputed domain name.

The Complainant adds that the addition, within the disputed domain name, of the term “notification” demonstrates that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its activities.

At last, the Complainant explains that the Respondent has usurped its identity to register the disputed domain name and that shows definitely its bad faith.

- Use in bad faith

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name does not resolve to any active website and generates an error web page.

The Complainant adds that such use constitutes a passive use of the disputed domain name, which is revealing that the Respondent has no serious intent to use it.

Moreover, the Complainant specifies that the presence of an error page may let the user to think that the Complainant neglects its online communication. According to the Complainant, this disturbs its online presence and brand image.

As such, the Complainant considers that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied, namely:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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 onus of proving these elements is on the Complainant.

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 French, European Union and International trademarks CREDIT MUTUEL.

This trademark is entirely reproduced in the disputed domain name.

The addition of the suffix “.com” in the disputed domain name is not relevant to avoid the confusing similarity.

This is also the case for the prefix “notification” which is a dictionary term and a very common word in the Complainant’s activities.

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the 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 provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

This Panel is satisfied that the Respondent does not appear to have been commonly known by the disputed domain name, it is not a licensee or an agent of the Complainant, nor in any way is authorized to use the Complainant’s trademarks.

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(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

Given the reputation of the CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks, the Respondent could not be unaware of the Complainant and its business at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name.

Moreover, the Respondent impersonates the Complainant to register the disputed domain name.

In addition, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name is currently redirecting to an error web page. Passive holding of a domain name can be an evidence of bad faith use. See section 3.3. of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)

Thus, (i) the fact that the Complainant’s trademark is reproduced, in its entirety, within the disputed domain name, (ii) the Respondent has abstained, despite the possibility offered to him, to justify a fair use of the disputed domain name, (iii) the disputed domain name is redirecting to an error web page and, (iv) the Respondent impersonates the Complainant, are elements that characterize the Respondent’s bad faith.

For all these reasons, it appears to this Panel that the disputed domain name has been 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 <notification-creditmutuel.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Christophe Caron
Sole Panelist
Date: August 20, 2019