WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A. and Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel v. Name Redacted

Case No. D2019-1223

1. The Parties

The Complainants are Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A. and Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.

The Respondent is Name Redacted¹ .

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain names <cic-authentification.com> and <creditmutuel-authentification.com> are registered with Tucows Inc., (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 29, 2019. On May 29, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On May 29, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 6, 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 amended Complaint on June 11, 2019.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 June 13, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 3, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent about the commencement of panel appointment process on July 4, 2019.

The Center appointed Christophe Caron as the sole panelist in this matter on July 9, 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 Complainants, Credit Industriel et Commercial and Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel, are both part of the same banking group known as CREDIT MUTUEL-CM11 Group, one of the major French banking and insurance services groups.

Credit Industriel et Commercial, in abbreviated form CIC, is a deposit bank, which information and online access to bank accounts are accessible at “www.cic.fr”.

Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel is the political and central body of the banking group Credit Mutuel. Its services, including banking services, are accessible at “www.creditmutuel.com” and “www.creditmutuel.fr”.

Credit Industriel et Commercial owns several trademarks consisting of or including the sign CIC worldwide, and notably:

- French trademark C.I.C. No. 1358524, registered on June 10, 1986, duly renewed, covering goods and services in classes 35 and 36.
- European Union Trade Mark CIC No. 005891411, registered on March 5, 2008 duly renewed, covering goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36.

In addition, Crédit Industriel et Commercial, among other, domain names reflecting its trademarks in order to promote its services:

- <cic.fr> registered on May 28, 1999;
- <cic.eu> registered on March 6, 2006.

Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel owns several trademarks consisting in or including the sign CRÉDIT MUTUEL, worldwide, and notably:

- French trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL and design, No. 1475940 registered on July 8, 1988, duly renewed, covering goods and services in classes 35 and 36;
- French trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL and design , No. 1646012 registered on November 20, 1990, duly renewed, covering goods and services in classes in classes 16, 35, 36, 38 and 41;
- European Union Trade Mark CRÉDIT MUTUEL No. 9943135 registered on May 5, 2011 covering goods and services in classes in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, 45.

In addition, Confederation Nationale du Crédit Mutuel operates, among other, domain names reflecting its trademarks in order to promote its services:

- <creditmutuel.com> registered on October 28, 1995;
- <creditmutuel.fr> registered on August 10, 1995.

The disputed domain names <cic-authentification.com> and <creditmutuel-authentification.com> were registered on May 4, 2019.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainants

The Complainants make the following contentions.

Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainants first argue that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to their trademarks in the extent that the disputed domain names reproduce their trademarks CIC and CREDIT MUTUEL in their entirety, which previous UDRP panels have considered as well-known.

Moreover, the Complainants add that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) such as “.com” is irrelevant as it is well established that a gTLD is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity.

In addition, the Complainants explain that the addition of the descriptive word “authentification” (same word and signification in English and in French) as a suffix to the well-known trademarks CIC and CREDIT MUTUEL does not help to distinguish these disputed domain names from the Complainants’ trademarks. The Complainants add that the suffix “authentification” corresponds to a very common word in the Complainants’ banking business so that there is no doubt this suffix would be commonly perceived by any Internet user as an indication, even a criterion, of the safety of any website or online activity around the domain names <cic-authentification.com> and <creditmutuel-authentification.com>.

For the above-mentioned reasons, the Complainants consider that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademarks CIC and CRÉDIT MUTUEL, and therefore the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) is fulfilled.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

According to the Complainants, the Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. They explain that the Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated or licensed with the Complainants in any way and that they have not given to the Respondent or to anyone else the permission to use their trademarks in any manner, including in domain names.

The Complainants claim that the Respondent is not currently and has never been known under the wording “cic” or “Crédit Mutuel”, despite that the websites under the disputed domain names use these wordings.

At last, the disputed domain names are currently redirecting to identical holding pages with specification in several languages that the domain name is under maintenance.

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

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Registration in bad faith

The Complainants state that the Respondent could not have ignored the reputation of the trademarks CIC and CRÉDIT MUTUEL at the time it registered the disputed domain names so that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names precisely because of the well-known character of these trademarks.

In addition, the Complainants add that the adjunction of the suffix “authentification” to the trademarks CIC or CRÉDIT MUTUEL in a domain name strengthens the likelihood of confusion with the trademarks as it generates to the Internet users the feeling to be facing an official website.

In conclusion, the Complainants consider that the Respondent registered both disputed domain names on which it had no rights or legitimate interests and introduced itself falsely as the banking services companies CIC and Crédit Mutuel, undoubtedly with intent of deliberate deceit; such behavior is considered as bad faith in registration of a domain name.

Finally, the Complainants point out that the Respondent seems to impersonate someone by using his name and address.

According to the Complainants, this combination of facts is asserting the bad faith registration of the disputed domain names.

Use in bad faith

The Complainants claim at last that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names constitutes bad faith use.

The disputed domain names <cic-authentification.com> and <creditmutuel-authentification.com> are both directing to the same holding page that informs in several languages that “the website is under maintenance”. The Complainants contend that this visible (non-) use of the disputed domain names <cic-authentification.com> and <creditmutuel-authentification.com> constitutes bad faith use, as “passive holding”.

In addition, the Complainants precise that the disputed domain names are reproducing the well-known trademarks CIC and CRÉDIT MUTUEL associated to the descriptive word “authentification”. These combinations of trademarks and descriptive word will immediately suggest to the Internet users a relation with the Complainant, which does not exist.

Moreover, according to the Complainants, the disputed domain names might mislead Internet users looking for CIC and CRÉDIT MUTUEL services; instead of that, the Internet users will land on a webpage with unexpected content and they may think this is due to the Complainants. The Complainants consider this is clearly tarnishing their image.

Finally, the Complainants underline that email servers have been activated for the disputed domain names. From this perspective, the Respondent is able to send and receive emails through any address with “@creditmutuel-authentification.com” and “@cic-authentification.com” suffix. The Complainants consider that the Respondent could use it in any way and it is hard to imagine in which legitimate way such emails would be used.

As such, the Complainants consider that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

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

(i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and

(iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.

The onus of proving these elements is on the Complainants.

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 trademarks registered by the Complainants.

The Complainants are the owners of French, European Union and International trademarks CIC and CRÉDIT MUTUEL.

The trademarks CIC and CRÉDIT MUTUEL are entirely reproduced in the disputed domain names.

In this Panel’s opinion, the addition of the suffix “.com” in the disputed domain names is not relevant to avoid the confusing similarity.

This is also the case for the suffix “authentification” which corresponds to a very common word in the Complainants’ activities.

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the registered trademarks in which the Complainant’s have 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 Complainants must establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.

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

Furthermore, the Respondent cannot claim to have been using the terms “cic” and “Credit Mutuel”, without being aware of the Complainants’ rights.

Hence, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names 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 names in bad faith.

Regarding the reputation of the CIC and CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks, the Respondent could not have ignored them at the time of the registration. The Panel therefore considers that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith.

The Panel notes that the disputed domain names are both directing to the same holding page that informs that “the website is under maintenance”. Passive holding of a domain name can also be an evidence of bad faith use.

Furthermore, email servers have been activated for the disputed domain names and it is hard to imagine in which legitimate way such emails would be used. On the contrary, the Respondent could use any emails address with “@cic-authentification.com” and “@creditmutuel-authentification.com” suffixes for commercial emailing, spamming and phishing purpose.

For all these reasons, it appears to this Panel that the disputed domain names <cic-authentification.com> and <creditmutuel-authentification.com> were registered and are 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 names <cic-authentification.com> and <creditmutuel-authentification.com> be transferred to the Complainants.

Christophe Caron
Sole Panelist
Date: July 18, 2019

¹ On the basis of the case file presented to the Panel, it seems that the Respondent is not the true holder and registrant of the disputed domain names. In light of a potential identity theft, the Panel, therefore, has redacted the Respondent’s name from this Decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this Decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain names, which includes the name of the registrant according to the Registrar’s WhoIs database. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding, and has indicated that Annex 1 to this Decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See ASOS plc. v. Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2017-1520.