Confederation Nationale Du Credit Mutuel v arbouche hind
WIPO Case No. D2023-2420
•15-08-2023
ARBITRATION
AND
| MEDIATION CENTER |
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Confederation Nationale Du Credit Mutuel v. arbouche hind
Case No. D2023-2420
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Confederation Nationale Du Credit Mutuel, France, represented by MEYER &
Partenaires, France.
The Respondent is arbouche hind, France.
2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names <creditmutueel.com>, <1creditmutueel-fr.com>, <1creeditmutuel-fr.com> and
<1fr-creditmutuel.com> are registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 5, 2023. On
June 5, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain names. On June 5, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the
Center its verification response, disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names
which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy (DT), Dynadot Privacy Service) and
contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June
8, 2023, 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 12, 2023. In response to the Center’s invitation to rectify certain information in the Complaint, the
Complainant filed a second amended Complaint on June 14, 2023.
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 20, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 10, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 25, 2023.
page 2
The Center appointed William Lobelson as the sole panelist in this matter on August 1, 2023. 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 is the political and central body of the banking group Crédit Mutuel. Crédit Mutuel is one of the largest French banking and insurance services group.
The Complainant is the registered owner of a large number of trademarks consisting of or including the wording “Crédit Mutuel”, in France and abroad.
Inter alia:
| - | CRÉDIT MUTUEL, French device trademark No. 1475940, registered on July 8, 1988, in classes 35 and 36; |
| - | CRÉDIT MUTUEL, French device trademark No. 1646012, registered on July 8, 1988 in classes 35, and 36; |
| - | CRÉDIT MUTUEL, European Union word Trade mark No. 9943135, registered on October 20, 2011 in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, and 45; and |
| - | CRÉDIT MUTUEL, International device trademark No. 570182, registered on May 17, 1991 in classes 16, 35, 36, 38, and 41. |
The Complainant has also registered several domain names including the trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL under gTLD and country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”).
Thus, the Complainant and its IT-dedicated subsidiary Euro Information are respectively the holder of many domain names including, inter alia:
| - | <creditmutuel.com>, registered on October 28, 1995; |
| - | <creditmutuel.fr>, registered on August 10, 1995; |
| - | <creditmutuel.org>, registered on June 3, 2002; |
| - | <creditmutuel.info> registered on September 13, 2001. |
In addition, the trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL has been recognized as well known by previous UDRP
decisions, inter alia in Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Philippe Marie, WIPO Case No.
D2010-1513 in which the panel wrote “Besides, Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL is well known”.
The disputed domain names <creditmutueel.com>, and <1creditmutueel-fr.com> were registered on
March 12, 2023, and <1creeditmutuel-fr.com> and <1fr-creditmutuel.com> were registered on March 21,
2023. None resolve to any active web pages.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its earlier trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain names.
page 3
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
Notwithstanding the default of the Respondent, it remains incumbent on the Complainant to make out its case in all respects under the Rules set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. Namely, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i));
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (paragraph 4(a)(ii)); and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii)).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names are: <creditmutueel.com>, <1creditmutueel-fr.com>, <1creeditmutuel-fr.com>, and <1fr-creditmutuel.com>.
The Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations formed with the name Credit Mutuel.
The disputed domain names reproduce and imitate the Complainant’s trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL.
The addition of extra letters “e”, “fr” and/or or figure “1” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
The minor differences between the Complainant’s trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL and the disputed domain names make the latter visually and phonetically similar to the former. This mere addition of letters or figure does nothing to distinguish the disputed domain names from the Complainant’s trademark.
This practice is commonly known as typosquatting, see section 1.9 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”): “A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element.”
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the
Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
To demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, non-exclusive respondent defenses under
UDRP paragraph 4(c) include the following:
(i) before any notice of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services;
(ii) the Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if the Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
page 4
(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleading divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The Panel notes that the Respondent has not filed a response and thus did not deny the Complainant’s assertions, nor brought any information or evidence for demonstrating any rights or legitimate interests.
The Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, particularly by asserting that the Respondent is not affiliated with it in any way and that it never authorized the Respondent to use its trademark as part of the disputed domain names.
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent is not known under the disputed domain names and does not make any bona fide use of the same, being emphasized that the disputed domain names do not resolve towards any active web page, but only an error page.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has met the requirement under the Policy of showing that the
Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant claims that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name and uses the same in bad faith, even though the said domain names do not resolve towards any active web page.
It is a consensus view among UDRP panels that, with comparative reference to the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP deemed to establish bad faith registration and use, the apparent lack of so- called active use (e.g., to resolve to a website) of the domain name without any active attempt to sell or to contact the trademark holder (passive holding), does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith.
The Panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the Respondent is acting in bad faith.
Examples of what may be cumulative circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith include the was used in bad faith given the circumstances surrounding registration.
Complainant having a well-known trademark, no response to the Complaint having been filed, and the
The Complainant has substantiated the fact that its trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL, which has been registered and used in France for years, now benefits from a high level of public’s awareness. Earlier UDRP decisions have acknowledged the Complainant’s trademark reputation:
Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Philippe Marie, WIPO Case No. D2010-1513 in which the panel wrote “Besides, Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL is well known”.
Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Mariano Jackline and Alex Leparox
, WIPO Case No. the field of banking and financial services, the Panel considers that the Respondents could not have ignored this trademark at the time they applied for the registration of the confusingly similar disputed domain names <creditmutuell.info> and <creditmutuell.org>.”
Further the disputed domain names were registered using a privacy service filed anonymously, but when the identity of the Respondent was disclosed by the Registrar, it was confirmed that this individual was based in France and that a place of residence in Lyon had been declared.
page 5
The Complainant’s investigations reveal that the details of the Respondent and in particular his address and phone number are not genuine.
The fact that the Respondent used French address and phone number implies that he is French resident or at least has connections with France, where the Complainant’s mark is very well known.
Further, the registration of the disputed domain names, which differ from the well-known the Complainant’s trademark only because of the addition of extra letters “e”, “fr” and/or or figure “1”, demonstrates the Respondent’s will to select the disputed domain names which are sufficiently similar to the trademark to attract the Internet users.
Regarding the similarity of the disputed domain names with the trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL, there is no way in which the disputed domain names could have been registered and then used in good faith.
In light of the above, this Panel finds hard to believe that the Respondent did not have the Complainant’s trademark in mind when he registered the disputed domain names.
The Panel also notes that the Respondent did not reply to the Complaint.
The Panel infers from the above that the Respondent acted in bad faith when he registered the disputed domain names, and still acts in bad faith.
The disputed domain names are currently in error and inactive. The visible use is preceded by a warning page from the browser indicating that the website is a “suspected fraudulent site”. When this warning is dismissed, the Internet user is directed to an inactive page.
As stated in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3, there is a consensus view about “passive holding”:
“From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank
or ‘coming soon’ page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While
panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered
relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (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.”
Such passive holding is to be regarded as use in bad faith (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear
Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Jupiters Limited v. Aaron Hall, WIPO Case No. D2000-0574;
Ladbroke Group Plc v. Sonoma International LDC, WIPO Case No. D2002-0131; Westdev Limited v. Private
Data, WIPO Case No. D2007-1903; Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1393; Intel Corporation v. The Pentium Group, WIPO Case No. D2009-0273).
Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Nicola Bazar, WIPO Case No. D2013-1572:
“Respondent knew or should have known that the Domain Name included Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL well-known trademark. […] However, passive holding of the website does not prevent the Panel from finding registration and use in bad faith. The Panel further notes that Respondent undeveloped use of the website at the Domain Name which incorporates Complainant’s trademark in its entirety indicates that Respondent
possibly registered the Domain Name with the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its
website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the trademark of Complainant as to the source,
sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a service on its website or location, as
per paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.”
The Complainant further contends the Respondent is engaged in a pattern of conduct, consisting in registering domain names that are similar to French banks trademarks. For example, the Panel notes that
page 6
two other UDRP procedures were rendered against the Respondent, in respect of the domain names that imitate the Complainant’s trademarks (See Crédit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. arbouche hind, WIPO Case No. D2023-2390 and Crédit Industriel et Commercial S.A. contre arbouche hind, WIPO Case No.
D2023-1501).
It transpires from this pattern of conduct that the Respondent’s registration and passive use of domain names, inspired from banks’ trademarks is tainted with bad faith.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy are satisfied.
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, <creditmutueel.com>, <1creditmutueel-fr.com>,
<1creeditmutuel-fr.com>, and <1fr-creditmutuel.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.
/William Lobelson/
William Lobelson
Sole Panelist
Date: August 15, 2023
0
0
0