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

Confederation Nationale Du Credit Mutuel v. Domain Admin, Whoisprotection.cc / Mamadou Gasama

Case No. D2020-0016

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Confederation Nationale Du Credit Mutuel of Paris, France, represented by Meyer & Partenaires, France.

The Respondent is Domain Admin, Whoisprotection.cc, Malaysia/Mamadou Gasama of Indonesia.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <authentification-creditmutuel.com> and <connexion-creditmutuel.com> (“Domain Names”) are registered with Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 6, 2020. On January 6, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On January 7, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 13, 2020 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 January 16, 2020.

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 January 17, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for the Respondent to file a Response was February 6, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the parties of the Respondent’s default on February 14, 2020.

The Center appointed Marylee Jenkins as the sole panelist in this matter on March 6, 2020. 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

Based on the review of the uncontested evidence submitted by the Complainant, the Panel determines that the Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations for the word mark CREDIT MUTUEL in multiple jurisdictions including: French Trademark Registration No. 1475940 (filed on July 7, 1988; registered 1988) in International classes 35 and 36; French Trademark Registration No. 1646012 (filed on November 20, 1990; registered 1991) in International classes 16, 35, 36, 38, and 41; European Union Trademark Registration No. 9943135 (filed on May 5, 2011; registered on October 20, 2011) in International classes 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, and 45; and European Union Trademark Registration No. 570182 (filed on May 16, 1991; registered on May 17 1991) in International classes 16, 35, 36, 38 and 41. The Complainant also owns the domain names <creditmutuel.info>, <creditmutuel.org>, <creditmutuel.fr>, <creditmutuel.com> and <creditmutuel.net> and markets its services and programs through its primary websites accessible at the domain names <creditmutuel.fr> and <creditmutuel.com>.

The Domain Names <authentification-creditmutuel.com> and <connexion-creditmutuel.com> were registered on December 18, 2019. There are currently no websites accessible at these Domain Names.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant states that Credit Mutuel is a French banking and insurance services group, providing its services to 12 million clients for more than a century. The Complainant states that it has over 3,000 offices in France and provides services in all fields of finance. The Complainant further maintains an Internet presence through its primary websites at the domain names <creditmutuel.fr> and <creditmutuel.com> where its clients can manage their banking accounts online.

The Complainant states that it owns numerous trademark registrations for the Complainant’s Mark and that none of these registrations have been abandoned, cancelled, or revoked. Based on its extensive use and trademark registrations, the Complainant alleges that it owns the exclusive right to use the Complainant’s Mark and that the Complainant’s Mark is well known. Additionally, the Complainant states that the use of the wording “Credit Mutuel” is reserved to the Complainant and its related branches by French Ministry Order No. 58-966 issued on October 16, 1958.

The Complainant alleges that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark and that the fact that the Respondent has added the descriptive phrases “authentification” and “connexion” to the Complainant’s Mark, which are closely linked to and associated with both the Complainant’s brand and the Complainant’s Mark, only serve to underscore and increase the confusing similarity between the Domain Names and the Complainant’s Mark. The Complainant also alleges that these descriptive terms could confuse its clients into believing that they can access their personal banking accounts through these Domain Names. The Complainant argues that adding a dash between the descriptive terms and Complainant’s Mark does not sufficiently distinguish the Domain Names from the Complainant’s Mark. The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent created a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and the Complainant’s Mark by registering Domain Names that incorporate the Complainant’s Mark in its entirety and closely related phrases, which demonstrate that the Respondent is using at least one of the Domain Names to confuse unsuspecting Internet users looking for the Complainant’s services, and to mislead Internet users as to the source of the Domain Names and their websites.

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, which evinces a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Additionally, the Complainant notes that it has not licensed, authorized, or permitted the Respondent to register Domain Names incorporating the Complainant’s Mark. Rather, the Complainant notes that the Respondent has neither business relations with nor knowledge of the Respondent and that it has been unable to locate the identity of the Respondent through its research efforts.

The Complainant further alleges that at the time of registration of the Domain Names, the Respondent should have known of the existence of the Complainant’s Mark and that the registration of Domain Names containing well known trademarks constitutes bad faith per se. The Complainant then alleges that the Respondent could have chosen these Domain Names for no other reason than to create an impression of an association with the Complainant as the Complainant’s Mark is neither descriptive nor generic, which likelihood of confusion is made even more likely by the addition of the banking-related terms “authentification” and “connexion”. The Complainant also alleges that the Respondent, at the time of initial filing of the Complaint, had employed a privacy service to hide its identity, which supports an inference of bad faith registration and use.

The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s Mark, or any minor variation of it, strongly implies bad faith. The Complainant alleges that the domain name <authentification-creditmutuel.com> used to direct to a website imitating the Complainant’s website that invited the Complainant’s clients to enter their banking login and password in an attempt to steal this information. It claims that both Domain Names are now inactive and being passively held by the Respondent, which is further evidence of its bad faith. The Complainant then alleges that the registration of these Domain Names can allow the Respondent to include them in fraudulent emails used for phishing attempts to illicitly get the Complainant or its clients to give up their banking information or logins, which is additional evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith. Based on the above, the Complainant alleges that it is more likely than not that the Respondent knew of and targeted the Complainant’s Mark and that the Respondent should be found to have registered and used the Domain Names in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the domain name holder is to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (complainant) asserts to an ICANN-approved dispute resolution service provider that:

(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(ii) the domain name holder has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from the Respondent’s default as the Panel considers appropriate. Nevertheless, the Panel may rule in the Complainant’s favor only after the Complainant has proven that the above elements are present.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant has provided sufficient evidence to show that it is the owner of and has rights in and to the Complainant’s Mark.

A review of the second-level domains (“authentification-creditmutuel” and “connexion‑creditmutuel”) of the Domain Names shows that both domains comprise the Complainant’s Mark CREDIT MUTUEL in its entirety with the descriptive phrases “authentification” and “connexion” as prefixes. The hyphens in both Domain Names provide no significance in this review in determining whether the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark. Rather the review of the Complainant’s trademark registrations for the word mark CREDIT MUTUEL in multiple classes and jurisdictions shows that such registrations well pre-date the Respondent’s registrations of the Domain Names. The inclusion of the descriptive phrases “authentification” and “connexion” in the domains do not differentiate either of the Domain Names from the Complainant’s Mark. Rather such inclusions, along with the evidence of the Complainant’s own web sites at the domain names <creditmutuel.fr> and <creditmutuel.com>, show that the Respondent was clearly aware of the Complainant’s Mark and web sites when registering the Domain Names.

Based on this uncontested evidence, the Panel concludes that both of these Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark in which the Complainant has rights and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

There is no evidence that the Complainant has at any time ever licensed, sponsored, endorsed, or authorized the Respondent to register or use the Complainant’s Mark in any manner. In addition, no evidence has been presented that before notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent had been using or was making demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Names in connection with any type of bona fide offering of goods or services or that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Names, as an individual, business or otherwise. Rather the uncontested evidence clearly shows that the Complainant had well-established rights to the Complainant’s Mark in multiple jurisdictions that substantially pre-date the Respondent’s registrations of the Domain Names. In addition, the Complainant has presented sufficient evidence to result in a finding that the Respondent misleadingly diverted consumers to a fraudulent website at the domain name <authentification-creditmutuel.com> in an apparent phishing attempt to illicitly obtain the banking credentials of the Complainant’s clients, giving them unlimited access to their finances. Such use of one of these Domain Names by the Respondent cannot be considered to be legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The fact that both of these Domain Names now do not resolve to web sites does not change the fact that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in these Domain Names.

The Panelist therefore concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in these Domain Names and that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Based upon the undisputed evidence submitted by the Complainant, the Panel finds that the Respondent clearly had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s Mark when registering the Domain Names. This finding is supported by the uncontested evidence showing that the registrations of the Domain Names by the Respondent in no way pre-dates the Complainant’s substantially earlier registration dates for the Complainant’s Mark. Coupled with the evidence of the Complainant’s own websites at the domain names <creditmutuel.fr> and <creditmutuel.com>, the Complainant has more than sufficiently shown that the Respondent registered the Domain Names in bad faith for the purpose of intentionally diverting Internet users looking for the Complainant and its websites to the Respondent’s fraudulent site at “www.authentification-creditmutuel.com”. As the uncontested evidence also shows, the Respondent was not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Names and clearly had knowledge of the Complainant, the Complainant’s Mark, and the Complainant’s websites based on the Respondent’s fraudulent web site. The Respondent’s current non-use of these Domain Names and its failure to provide accurate contact information in the domain name registrations further support a finding of the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of these Domain Names.

When considered with the above evidence and findings, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and used the Domain Names to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, the Complainant’s clients as well as Internet users to the Respondent’s web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Mark and its websites as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement thereof and the services offered thereon. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent registered and has and is using the Domain Names in bad faith and that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and paragraph 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed Domain Names <authentification-creditmutuel.com> and <connexion-creditmutuel.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Marylee Jenkins
Sole Panelist
Date: April 10, 2020

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/