The Complainant is Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel de Paris, France, represented by Meyer & Partenaires, France.
The Respondent is Adam Saki of Paris, France.
The disputed domain name <credit-mutuelservice.com> is registered with Melbourne IT Ltd (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 1, 2016. On April 1, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 3, 2016, 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 April 6, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 26, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 27, 2016.
The Center appointed Isabelle Leroux as the sole panelist in this matter on May 9, 2016. 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.
The 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 has provided its services to 12 million clients for more than a century.
The Complainant is a major actor on the market of banking services for both individuals and businesses.
The Complainant is the owner of a large number of trademarks registered in France as well as in many countries worldwide and notably:
- CREDIT MUTUEL, French semi-figurative trademark No. 1475940, registered on July 8, 1988, in classes 35 and 36, renewed on August 27, 2008;
- CREDIT MUTUEL, French semi-figurative trademark No. 1646012, registered on November 20, 1990, in classes 16, 35, 36, 38 and 41, renewed on September 15, 2010;
- CREDIT MUTUEL, nominative European Union trademark No. 9943135, registered on October 20, 2011, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, 45;
- CREDIT MUTUEL, semi-figurative International trademark No. 570182, registered on May 17, 1991, in classes 16, 35, 36, 38 and 41, designating Benelux, Italy and Portugal, renewed on February 28, 2011.
The Complainant is also the owner of a large number of domain names consisting in the denomination “Credit Mutuel”.
According to the WhoIs records, the Respondent is based in France.
The disputed domain name <credit-mutuelservice.com> was created on November 30, 2015. The disputed domain name resolves to a hosting page displaying the words “In Motion Website”.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL. The Complainant explains that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension “.com” and the addition of the word “services” to the well-known trademark CREDIT MUTUEL shall be disregarded as regards the appreciation of the likelihood of confusion to the extent that those elements have no distinctive character and are not able to differentiate the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In particular, the Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business; the Respondent is not one of the Complainant’s agents nor does it carry out any activity for or have any business with the Complainant.
The Complainant also submits that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, as the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL is famous, which means that the Respondent knew, or should have known of the Complainant’s rights and did not register the disputed domain name fortuitously.
The Complainant also submits that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name points to a sole webpage featuring the text “In Motion Website” (corresponding to the name of the hosting company), after having reached a page in which a warning message specified that the website at the disputed domain name has been blocked for phishing purposes.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
Under paragraph 4 of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the disputed domain name be transferred:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark to which it 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.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires the Panel to decide the dispute on the basis of the statements and documents that have been submitted and any rules and principles of law deemed applicable.
The Complainant demonstrates that it has rights in many CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks. The Panel further acknowledges that the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL is widely known for banking services.
As to whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, the relevant comparison to be made is with the second-level part of the disputed domain name (i.e., “credit mutuelservices”) as it is well established that the gTLD suffix (i.e., “.com”) should typically be disregarded for this purpose.
The disputed domain name comprises the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark, and only differs from the Complainant’s trademarks by the addition of the descriptive word “services”. This word is all the more descriptive that it directly relates to the Complainant’s activity that consists of offering banking services, namely through the Internet, which it has done for some years.
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name may be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the addition of descriptive words in the domain name.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. As a result, the Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
A respondent may have rights or legitimate interests under the Policy in the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. The circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy are examples only, and are not an exhaustive enumeration of the ways in which rights or legitimate interests can be shown.
While paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that these are circumstances where a respondent may show rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, the overall burden of establishing this requirement falls on the complainant. Nonetheless, in view of the difficulty inherent in proving a negative and because the relevant information is often in the possession of the respondent only, it will be sufficient for the complainant to establish a prima facie case which, if not rebutted, will typically lead to this ground being established (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 2.1).
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business and that no license or authorization has been granted to the Respondent to register any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark.
In addition, the evidence provided by the Complainant shows that the disputed domain name is currently inactive and was previously leading a warning message stating “The page you are trying to visit has been blocked by the Netcraft Toolbar because it is believed to be part of a fraudulent phishing attack”.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has met the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant persuasively argues that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name <credit-mutuelservice.com> in bad faith.
The Panel also infers bad faith registration from the combination in the disputed domain name of the Complainant’s trademark together with the descriptive word “service”. Indeed, at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name, the widely-known character of the Complainant’s trademarks was established namely in France where the Respondent is located. Furthermore, the fact of adding the word “service” to a trademark dedicated to bank services demonstrates that the Respondent was most likely aware of the Complainant’s activities and registered the disputed domain name for the sole purpose of creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.
According to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, bad faith is established if it is evidenced that the domain name is used to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the registrant’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the registrant’s website or location or a product or service on the registrant’s website or location.
In the present case, the disputed domain name is currently inactive; however, it has been established in prior UDRP decisions that the passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith (See Mace Limited v. Giovanni Laporta, Yoyo.Email / Domain Controller, Yoyo Email, WIPO Case No. D2015-0754; Schneider Electric S.A. v. LLC “ALL-ENERGY”, WIPO Case No. D2015-0388).
Furthermore, the fact that Internet users, when attempting to access the website at the disputed domain name, were warned that the website has been blocked due to suspected phishing is another element that leads the Panel to conclude that bad faith use has been made of the disputed domain name.
In the Panel’s view, the registration of the disputed domain name was not fortuitous. Its passive holding and the warning message encountered when attempting to access the website at the disputed domain name are evidence of bad faith use.
Without a doubt, the Complainant must prevent phishing attacks and protect its clients’ financial data against such attacks.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith and that the Complainant has met the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
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 <credit-mutuelservice.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Isabelle Leroux
Sole Panelist
Date: May 23, 2016