WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Monabanq SA v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Vetur Loan

Case No. D2021-0191

1. The Parties

Complainant is Monabanq SA, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.

Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Vetur Loan, Benin.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <monabankinter.com>, <monacreditbank.com>, <monainvestmentbank.com>, <moracreditbank.com> and <mora-financialbank.online> (the “Domain Names”) are registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 22, 2021. On January 22, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On January 25, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Names, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on February 2, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on February 5, 2021.

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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 15, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 7, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on March 8, 2021.

The Center appointed Christopher S. Gibson as the sole panelist in this matter on March 15, 2021. 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

Complainant is a French banking company and subsidiary of the leading banking group, Crédit Mutuel CIC. Created in 2006, Complainant operates a completely online banking business through its website at “www.monabanq.com” and through a mobile application using the same name, “Monabanq”. Complainant offers online bank and insurance services to individuals and professionals. Complainant has provided links to its website with additional details about its operations.

Complainant is the registered owner of the following MONABANQ trademarks in the European Union (“EU”) and in other countries:

- MONABANQ, French semi-figurative trademark No. 3774308 registered on October 14, 2010 in class 41;
- MONABANQ, EU semi-figurative trademark No. 18064036 registered on May 14, 2019, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, and 38;
- MONABANQ, International semi-figurative trademark No. 1089672 registered on April 14, 2011 in classes 38 and 41;
- MONABANQ, EU trademark No. 5601224 registered on December 19, 2006, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36 and 38;
- MONABANQ.COM, International trademark No. 943266 registered on October 9, 2007.

Complainant (or its subsidiary Euro Information) has registered numerous domain names using the mark MONABANQ, including:

- <monabanq.fr> registered on March 24, 2006
- <monabanq.com> registered on March 23, 2006
- <monabanq.net> registered on March 23
- <monabanq.eu> registered on April 7, 2006
- <monabanq.org> registered on March 23, 2006
- <monabanq.credit> registered on August 27, 2014
- <monabanq.finance> registered on September 3, 2014

Pursuant to the notice sent by WIPO to Complainant on February 2, 2021, Respondent was identified as Vetur Loan, located in Benin. Complainant conducted a search in the Register of Commerce for Benin, as well as a Google search for “Vetur Loan”, but found no results for this name.

Complainant confirms that it has no business relations with an entity named Vetur Loan and that Respondent is using the trademark MONABANQ without Complainant’s authorization.

Respondent registered the five Domain Names on the following dates:

- <monacreditbank.com> registered on June 14, 2020
- <moracreditbank.com> registered on July 23, 2020
- <mora-financialbank.online> registered on January 15, 2020
- <monainvestmentbank.com> registered on August 6, 2020
- <monabankinter.com> registered on September 8, 2020.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

(i) Identical or confusingly similar

Complainant emphasizes that it has rights arising from its trademarks and domain names for the fanciful word, MONABANQ, all arising prior to the registration of the Domain Names. The MONABANQ trademark is regularly cited by the press, specialized or not, as among the best-known online banks in France. These publications support that the MONABANQ brand has established a reputation with consumers and the French public. One UDRP panel has already indicated that the mark MONABANQ enjoys a strong reputation in France. See MONABANQ SA v. Marco Kotchon, WIPO Case No. D2020-0252.

Complainant asserts that each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to its MONABANQ trademark and to its domain names, especially <monabanq.com>. The main and distinctive elements are “mona” or “mora” used in combination with the descriptive words “bank”, “inter”, “investment”, “credit” or “financial”. Consequently, the distinctive element “mona” of the mark MONABANQ is recognizable in each Domain Name. The elements “mona” and “mora” are also very close; the letters are all the same except for one, the sole different letters “n” and” r”. These letters are graphically almost identical, so they can easily be mistaken. As “mona” is a completely fanciful word, it is clear that its presence in the Domain Names is intended to create a reference to Complainant’s trademark.

Accordingly, Complainant submits that the Domain Names refer clearly to Complainant’s trademark and the addition of minor descriptive elements does nothing to distinguish the Domain Names from Complainant’s trademark MONABANQ and its domain name <monabanq.com>. On the contrary, with the presence of both elements – “mona” (or its imitation “mora”) and “bank” – the Domain Names are similar to the MONABANQ mark and phonetically remind one of Complainant’s mark and increase confusion in the Internet user’s mind. Previous UDRP panels have already ruled in this way. See MONABANQ SA v. WhoIs Agent, Domain Protection Services, Inc. / Don Gorias, WIPO Case No. D2019-2404.

In view of this analysis, Complainant contends that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the trademark MONABANQ in which Complainant has rights.

(ii) Rights or legitimate interests

Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Respondent is not related in any way to Complainant’s business. No license or authorization has been granted to Respondent to make any use of or apply for registration of the Domain Names. Further, Complainant claims that Respondent is not currently and has never been known by the word “mona” or by the Domain Names, despite that websites linked to some of the Domain Names pretend to be actual businesses associated with these names.

Complainant indicates that while two of the Domain Names <monabankinter.com> and <monacreditbank.com> are inactive, the three other Domain Names link to three very similar websites supposedly offering financial services under the names “Mona Investment Bank”, “Mora Crédit Bank” and “Mora Financial Bank”. These websites resolve in several languages to the same textual and graphical content, but with different names and logos. They pretend to be websites of official banking companies. However, Complainant’s research has not disclosed results for actual businesses – either online or at the postal addresses in France or Switzerland mentioned at the bottom of the relevant websites. None of these putative banking agencies is registered in the official national registers of Switzerland or France. At the same time, a “login page” for each website seems to collect personal data through a form. That page also appears to drive Internet users to a private area secured through login and password. It cannot be excluded that this form is being used to collect personal data. Complainant contends that all of these elements demonstrate the websites are fake and do not represent existing registered banking companies. Further, a specific paragraph of each identical website specifies that the supposed company is related to the Crédit Mutuel Group. Complainant is itself part of this group. However, there are absolutely no companies in the Crédit Mutuel Group named “Mona Investment Bank”, “Mora Credit Bank” or “Mora Financial Bank”. This is further evidence that the Domain Names refer to Complainant and attempt to pass off as Complainant with the related websites.

According to the information provided by the Center to the parties on February 2, 2021, the Complainant considers the possibility of Respondent being a company of Benin named “Vetur Loan”. Complainant’s searches in the Register of Commerce for Benin and on Google have failed to disclose the legal existence of this company. Respondent appears to have no legal existence, so it cannot have any right or legitimate interest as a banking business.

Complainant claims that Respondent has built a website and reproduced it under different names and Domain Names, pretending to be related to the Crédit Mutuel Group. Further, regarding the business carried out by Respondent, it is inconceivable that Respondent might have been using the Domain Names for any legal activity; on the contrary, Complainant urges that it is likely Respondent’s aim was to collect login, passwords and personal data through the pages of the websites, probably for fraudulent purposes such as scamming or personal data concealment. Such illegal activity never gives rise to rights or legitimate interests. Complainant also claims that the two inactive Domain Names might have been used or are intended to be used in the same pattern. None of the Domain Names has been used for a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

Considering this analysis, Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights and no legitimate interests in the Domain Names.

(iii) Registered and used in bad faith

Respondent registered the Domain Names during 2020. Complainant has owned trademark rights for its MONABANQ mark in the EU and in several other countries since 2006; these trademark rights predate the Domain Names by more than 14 years. Complainant has already established a strong presence on the Internet, as its entire business operates online through the website at “www.monabanq.com”. Accordingly, Respondent should have been aware of Complainant and its online business, as it is easy to find the MONABANQ mark through a browser search. Further, MONABANQ has a strong reputation, as it is a leading online bank in France.

Complainant states the trademark MONABANQ, especially the first part MONA, is strongly distinctive and arbitrary for the services offered. MONABANQ is also fanciful, including the term “banq”, especially as the French word for that business is “banque”. Complainant is the sole company using the spelling “banq”. The descriptive word “bank” is very close to “banq” and the combination of the words “mona” or “mora” and “bank” with other words (i.e., inter, investment, credit, financial) in the Domain Names reminds one immediately of the trademark MONABANQ.

Complainant urges that given the distinctiveness of its trademarks, the similarities between those marks and the Domain Names cannot have occurred by chance. Complainant claims that Respondent registered the Domain Names with full knowledge of Complainant’s trademark, which is evidence of bad faith registration. Further, Respondent registered not just one but five Domain Names that imitate Complainant’s mark MONABANQ; this cannot more be considered the result of mere chance and is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith. There is no doubt Respondent intentionally registered each of the Domain Names for its potential to cause confusion with Complainant’s marks.

Further, as mentioned above, the Complainant considered that Respondent could be a company of Benin, named Vetur Loan. However, this company seems to have no legal existence, which cannot be the case in the highly regulated banking business. In addition, Respondent was already involved in a previous UDRP case with similar circumstances: Crédit Industriel et Commercial S.A v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / VETUR LOAN, Collosal inc, WIPO Case No. D2020-0632. There, the panel considered that the disputed domain name was similar to a well-known French bank trademark, CIC; that Respondent did not show any right or legitimate interest in the domain name; and that Respondent was found to have registered and used the domain name in bad faith. Accordingly, Respondent seems to be engaged in a pattern of bad faith registrations. This combination of facts demonstrate the bad faith registration of the Domain Names.

Complainant also contends that Respondent’s use of the Domain Names constitutes bad faith use, as it is creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s business and MONABANQ mark. At the time of filing the Complaint, three of the Domain Names, <monainvestmentbank.com>, <moracreditbank.com> and <mora-financialbank.online>, resolved to active websites. The first two resolve to a website with the same textual and graphical content, whereas the website at <mora-financialbank.online> displays a website containing the same textual content, but with different pictures. Further, the “login” link on each of the three websites resolves the same login page. This login page may have been placed on this website to collect personal data through the form boxes, undoubtedly for fraudulent purposes to perpetrate a scam or phishing. Moreover, the sites refer to Group Crédit Mutuel, to which Complainant belongs, and displays the Crédit Mutuel logo.

Complainant states that these Domain Names have undoubtedly been registered together and used to mislead Internet users looking for Complainant’s services. The use of the Domain Names refers to Complainant in several ways and leads Internet users to believe that they are on Complainant’s official website, especially since the sites allegedly offer financial services similar to Complainant’s business. This is an evident attempt at online passing off, or at least an attempt to create sufficient confusion in the Internet user’s mind to gain their confidence and interact with them through the websites. Complainant contends this use supports a finding that Respondent has registered the Domain Names to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark.

In addition, Complainant emphasizes that Respondent has specified physical addresses on its websites, referring to locations in Switzerland and France. While the banking business is strongly monitored by national authorities in these countries and it is mandatory to register in specific registers, Complainant has conducted searches in the official registers, but found that none of the names mentioned on Respondent’s websites are listed. The only conclusion is that Respondent’s activities are not registered and, consequently, are illegal. Such use of the Domain Names is clearly intended to take advantage of confusion with Complainant’s trademark to gain the Internet users’ confidence for fraudulent purposes, like perpetrating a fraud, phishing or personal data theft. Such illegal use is undoubtedly bad faith use.

The two remaining Domain Names, <monabankinter.com> and <monacreditbank.com>, are inactive. Complainant contends that this visible non-use of these Domain Names constitutes bad faith use, as it can be considered passive holding. As stated in previous UDRP cases, non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) does not prevent a finding of bad faith. Under the UDRP, panelists look at the totality of the circumstances, including the following factors: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put.

Complainant submits that all of these factors apply in this case to Respondent’s passive holding of the Domain Names <monabankinter.com> and <monacreditbank.com>. Further, these factors can be combined with the following supplemental circumstances, which strengthen a finding of passive holding in bad faith: the Domain Names imitate Complainant’s MONABANQ trademarks and its domain name; the differences between the trademarks and the two Domain Names are minor, so that it is easy to fool Internet users; and it is implausible that the Domain Names might be used in good faith. On the contrary, the Domain Names mislead Internet users looking for Complainant’s services. In addition, Internet users will land on a holding page that does not display the expected content and might think this error is due to Complainant, reflecting poor management of its website. This tarnishes Complainant’s image.

Finally, Complainant points out that, as a financial services group, it continually faces counterfeiting and phishing attempts, which is an egregious example of bad faith use. Complainant has to prevent these attempts, while protecting its clients from counterfeiting and fraud.

All of these circumstances, as well as Complainant well-established trademarks, demonstrate that the Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

In order to succeed on its Complaint, Complainant must demonstrate that the three elements set forth in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied. These elements are that:

(i) the Domain Names registered by Respondent are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;

(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names; and

(iii) Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established that it has well-established rights in its registered MONABANQ trademarks. The Panel finds that all of the Domain Names incorporate the distinctive element “mona” (or close substitute “mora”) derived from Complainant’s marks, while adding the word “bank”, instead of “banq”. This combination in the Domain Name creates a confusing similarity with Complainant’s MONABANQ mark. The Domain Names include certain other words in various placements – “inter”, “investment”, “credit”, and “financial” – but the addition of these words does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), which states, “where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing.”

Accordingly, the Panel finds that each of the Domain Names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Regarding the second element of the Policy, section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, states, “where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element”.

Here, the Panel determines that Complainant has made out a prima facie case, while Respondent has failed to reply to Complainant’s contentions. The Panel finds that Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use Complainant’s MONABANQ trademarks; that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names; that Respondent has not used the Domain Names for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, nor used them in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services – instead, the Domain Names are either inactive (two of them) or link to websites (three of them) that appear to be part of a fraudulent scheme to attract Internet users and collect their personal data. The registration data for Respondent (as a supposed company, Vetur Loan, located in Benin) also appears to be false. Given the reputation and distinctiveness of Complainant’s marks, Respondent’s use of the Domain Names in these ways does not give rise to any rights or legitimate interests in them. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1 (“Panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent”).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie showing of Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names, which has not been rebutted by Respondent. The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has established the second element of the Policy in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii).

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant demonstrates that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1, states, “bad faith under the UDRP is broadly understood to occur where a respondent takes unfair advantage of or otherwise abuses a complainant’s mark”.

Here, the Panel determines that the Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Based on the evidence, there is little doubt that Respondent, when it registered the Domain Names at various times during 2020, was aware of Complainant and its MONABANQ marks, and intentionally targeted those marks, when registering the Domain Names. As noted above, Respondent registered the Domain Names, which incorporate the distinctive element “mona” (or close substitute “mora”) derived from Complainant’s marks, while adding the word “bank”, instead of Complainant’s term, “banq”. This combination in the Domain Name, along with certain other words in various placements – “inter”, “investment”, “credit”, and “financial” – creates an overall impression that the Domain Names refer to Complainant and its services. Indeed, the additional words relate to Complainant’s banking and financial services. The Domain Names have no independent dictionary word meaning. Thus, given the distinctiveness of Complainant’s MONABANQ marks, the timing of the registration of the Domain Names many years after Complainant had establish rights in its MONABANQ marks, and the fact that the Domain Names are so obviously connected with Complainant’s marks, the Panel considers that the only logical conclusion is that Respondent targeted Complainant and its marks when registering the Domain Names. See Accenture Global Services Limited v. ICS Inc./PrivacyProtect.org, WIPO Case No. D2013-2098 (finding that it was unlikely that the respondent was unaware of complainant and its ACCENTURE mark at the time the disputed domain name was registered).

This point is further confirmed by Respondent’s use of the Domain Names. As discussed above, three of the Domain Names, <monainvestmentbank.com>, <moracreditbank.com> and <mora-financialbank.online>, resolved to websites that have similar textual and graphical content, as well as the same login page where personal data of third parties may be collected. The websites refer to Group Crédit Mutuel, to which Complainant belongs, even though there are no companies in that group named “Mona Investment Bank”, “Mora Credit Bank” or “Mora Financial Bank”. The websites list postal addresses in Switzerland and France, yet none of the names mentioned on Respondent’s websites are listed in the official registers for banking companies in those countries. Further, if Respondent was to be considered as a company named Vetur Loan, located in Benin, Complainant’s search of the Register of Commerce for Benin and on Google failed to disclose the legal existence of this company. Finally, it appears that Respondent was involved in at least one prior UDRP case targeting a financial institution. See Crédit Industriel et Commercial S.A v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / VETUR LOAN, Collosal inc, WIPO Case No. D2020-0632, (“panel ordered transfer of domain name <cicbanque-assurances.online). All of these factors point to use of these Domain Names in bad faith. The Panel finds that these Domain Names have been registered together and used to mislead Internet users looking for Complainant’s services. This appears to be an attempt at online passing off, where Respondent has registered the Domain Names to attract, for commercial gain or other fraudulent purposes, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark.

As to the two remaining Domain Names, <monabankinter.com> and <monacreditbank.com>, which are inactive, the Panel determines that the circumstances in this case point to Respondent’s passive holding of them in bad faith. The Panelist determines that the following factors support this conclusion: (i) the degree of distinctiveness of Complainant’s MONABANQ mark and Respondent’s targeting of that mark through the Domain Names; (ii) the failure of Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) Respondent’s concealing its identity; and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the Domain Names might be put.

In conclusion, in this case, where Respondent failed to submit a reply to Complainant’s contentions, the Panel determines that, for all of the above reasons, the Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Accordingly, Complainant has satisfied the third element of the Policy.

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 Domain Names, <monabankinter.com>, <monacreditbank.com>, <monainvestmentbank.com>, <moracreditbank.com>, and <mora-financialbank.online>, be transferred to Complainant.

Christopher S. Gibson
Sole Panelist
Date: April 6, 2021