About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Domain Administrator, Fast Serv Inc. d.b.a. QHoster.com / Konate Asita

Case No. D2018-2748

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Domain Administrator, Fast Serv Inc. d.b.a. QHoster.com of Belize City, Belize / Konate Asita of California, United States of America (“United States”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <credit-mutuell.info> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 29, 2018. On November 29, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 29, 2018, 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 December 3, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 23, 2018. The Respondent submitted informal email communications on December 12 and 15, 2018 but did not submit a formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties on December 26, 2018 that it would proceed to panel appointment. On December 26, 2018, the Respondent submitted another informal email communication.

The Center appointed Jacob (Changjie) Chen as the sole panelist in this matter on January 16, 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, Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, the political and central body for the banking group CREDIT MUTUEL, mainly provides banking services for both individuals and business. The Complainant is the owner of the CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks, e.g. French Trademark No. 1646012, registered on July 8, 1988; French Trademark No.1646012, registered on November 20, 1990; and European Trademark No. 009943135, registered on October 20, 2011. The Complainant registered domain names <creditmutuel.com> on October 28, 1995 and <creditmutuel.fr> on August 10, 1995, and has been operating websites “www.creditmutuel.com” and “www.creditmutuel.fr” to provide its banking services. Further, the Complainant owns domain names <creditmutuel.net>, registered on October 3, 1996; <creditmutuel.org>, registered on June 3, 2002; and <creditmutuel.info>, registered on September 13, 2001.

The Respondent, Fast Serv Inc. d.b.a. QHoster.com, registered the disputed domain name on October 26, 2018. The disputed domain name resolved to an index webpage at the time of filing the Complaint while the resolved website is not active when the Panel renders the decision.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL trademark, and the doubling of the final letter “l” and the addition of a dash (“-”) between “credit” and “mutuel” could not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark.

The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant finally contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant is the owner of the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark, early registered in 1988, French Trademark No. 1646012, far predated the registration date of the disputed domain name (October 26, 2018). The Complainant has successfully established its right upon the trademark.

The disputed domain name <credit-mutuell.info> incorporates the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL in its entirety, with a doubling of the final letter “l” and an addition of a dash in the middle of the Complainant’s trademark. UDRP jurisprudence has established that incorporation of a complainant’s trademark in its entirety into a domain name is sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark. Moreover, the mere repeated “l” and “-” does not significantly affect the appearance or pronunciation of the disputed domain name. This conduct is commonly referred to as “typosquatting” and results into confusing similarity. See Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington, WIPO Case No. D2002-0775; and Schneider Electric S.A. v. Domain Whois Protect Service / Cyber Domain Services Pvt. Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2015-2333.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The burden of production is hence shifted to the Respondent to rebut the Complainant’s contentions. In this case, the Respondent’s failure to submit a response to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy according to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1. See Construction Skills Certification Scheme Limited v. Mara Figueira, WIPO Case No. D2010-0947.

Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that the disputed domain name was registered on October 26, 2018, thirty years after the registration date of the Complainant’s trademark. Given the reputation of the Complainant, the Panel holds that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark and/or services at the time of registering the disputed domain name as a simple Internet search would show that the mark CREDIT MUTUEL links to the Complainant. Without any rights or legitimate interests, the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name is indicative of bad faith.

The Panel further observes that the disputed domain name was resolved to an index webpage, with only a file named “cgi-bin”, but now the website is inactive. The Panel accepts that the Respondent used the disputed domain name actively by only connecting to the server and displaying a “cgi-bin” folder, but the resolved website is subsequently not active. Thus, the Panel views that the Respondent has been passively holding the disputed domain after registration. This may in certain circumstances amount to bad faith. Revevol SARL v. Whoisguard Inc. / Australian Online Solutions, Domain Support, WIPO Case No. D2015-0379. Given the reputation of the Complainant and the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.

For the reasons above, the Panel concludes that the third element of the Policy has been established.

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 <credit-mutuell.info> be transferred to the Complainant.

Jacob (Changjie) Chen
Sole Panelist
Date: January 31, 2019

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/